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

1955 Supreme(Cal) 70

MITTER, RENUPADA MUKHERJEE
JAINTA KUMAR BANERJEE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
N.K.Sen

MITTER, J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule was issued by the Bench taking undefended criminal cases to show cause why the petitioner's sentences should not be made concurrent.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was convicted and sentenced as follows:1. A sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and 6 months under Section 408 of the Penal Code, passed on 19/5/1951;2. A sentence of 4 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200. 00, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 3 months more under Section 420 of the Penal Code, passed an 5/9/1951;3. A sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 200. 00, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 2 months more under Section 420 of the Penal Code, passed on 22/9/1951;and lastly, a sentence of 2 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 474 of He Penal Code passed by Sen, J. on 20-8-1 (sic)2.

( 3 ) THE petitioner prays that the several sentences imposed upon him be directed to run (sic) currently. It is clear that so far as the petitioner (sic) conviction and the sentence imposed upon him (sic) this Court are concerned, we cannot interfere. (sic) regard to the sentences in respect of the other that convictions, we have, in our view; power (si

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