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

1992 Supreme(Ker) 166

PAREED PILLAY
Damodaran – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Judgment :-

This is a petition to grant permission to compound the offence as the matter is settled out of Court. First petitioner is the accused in C.C.173 of 1987 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Tellicherry. The other petitioners are the defacto complainants.

2. The case against the first petitioner (accused) is that he collected amount from the other petitioners promising them to arrange visa and thereafter he failed to do so or to refund the amount. Accused was convicted for offence under S.420 of the I.P.C. and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Tellicherry in Crl. A. 70 of 1990. Cr1.R.P. 694 of 1991 filed by the accused was dismissed by this Court on 7-4-1992. The present petition has been filed on 12-6-1992.

3. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether compounding of offences could be done when conviction and sentence against the accused have become final. Admittedly the conviction and sentence entered against the accused have become final in view of the dismissal of Crl. R. P. 694 of 1991. As the conviction and sentence entered against the accus







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