SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

M.L.TAHALIYANI
Rajesh Gevarchand Luniya – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicant:Deepak K. Girme, Advocate
For the Respondent: V.B. Konde Deshmukh, APP.

JUDGMENT

M.L. Tahaliyani, J.—The applicant is facing trial for offence punishable under Section 413 of the Indian Penal Code, in the Court of Sessions at Pune vide Session Case Nos.27 of 2014 and 26 of 2014, respectively.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant should not have been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 413 of the IPC, for allegedly habitually receiving stolen property unless he is convicted for the offence under Section 411 of IPC. Habitual Offender under The Bombay Habitual Offenders Act, 1959 is defined as under :

“2(e) “habitual offender” means any person who, since his attaining the age of eighteen years;

(i) during any consecutive period (whether before or after the commencement of this Act, or partly before and partly after such commencement) of five years, has been sentenced on conviction on not less than three occasions, to a substantive term of imprisonment for one or more of the scheduled offences committed on separate occasions, being offences, which are not so connected together as to form parts of the same transaction, and

(ii) such sentence has not been reversed in appeal or revision;

Provided that in computin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top