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

2001 Supreme(Del) 682

R.S.SODHI
NARESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Ashok Soni, U.L.VATVANI

R. S. Sodhi

( 1 ) NOTICE. Learned Counsel for the State accepts notice. Admit. Criminal Appeal No. 335/2001 is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in SC No. 124/98 whereby the learned Additional. Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities act by judgement dated 27. 4. 2001 and by a separate order of the same date was pleased to impose a sentence of three months with fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment, for 15 days.

( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant does not challenge the order of conviction on merits. He, however, submits that in the facts of the present case, the appellant ought to have been given the benefit of probation under Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code. and/or the Probation of Offenders Act. He submits that the offence was committed on 3/10/1996 for violating notification, which prohibited storing of edible oil beyond a particular measure. However, this notification was withdrawn on 10/11/1997. He submits that the offence, it at all, now if of technical nature and does not warrant imprisonment.

( 3 ) HE draws my attenti





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