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

ANU MALHOTRA
Ram Naresh Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
C. B. I. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atif Shamim, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Mridul Jain, SPP for CBI

JUDGMENT

Anu Malhotra, J.—The appellant, vide the present appeal assails the impugned judgment dated 25.04.2001 and the impugned order on sentence dated 26.04.2001 of the Court of the Learned Special Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in relation to RC No. 47(A)/96-DLI whereby the appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13(2) read with Sections 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 186/201 read with Section 224/332/353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Vide the impugned order on sentence dated 26.04.2001, the appellant was sentenced as under:-

“7. For the offence punishable u/s 7 of the P.C. Act, sentence prescribed by Law is “imprisonment which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years” and fine also. I am, therefore, of the view that if convict is sentenced to simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.2,000/- or in default simple imprisonment for two months, it shall serve the ends of Justice. I sentence him accordingly, for the said offence.

8. Offence u/s 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) is

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