D.DASH
Prasanta Lenka – Appellant
Versus
Birendra Nath Rana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
D. Dash, J.—The petitioner, by filing this revision, has called in question the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 23.7.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Balasore in Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2015 by which the judgment of conviction of the petitioner for commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short, called “the N.I. Act”) and the order of sentence as well as the direction for payment of compensation passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Jaleswar on 30.11.2015 in I.C.C. No. 34 of 2015 have been confirmed.
The opposite party (complainant) had filed the complaint arraigning the petitioner (accused) alleging the commission of offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act. The trial court having convicted the accused for commission of offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay compensation of Rs.6.00 lakh with the default stipulation as to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner (accused) had filed the appeal. The appellate court while confirming the finding of conviction as returned by the trial court
M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs. State of Kerala and another
K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan; 2007 (3) ApexCJ(SC) 429 . (Para 8) – Relied.
Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde; 2008 (1) ApexCJ(SC) 412). (Para 11) – Relied.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.