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

1984 Supreme(Mad) 221

M.K.NATARAJAN
Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Another – Appellant
Versus
Abdul Wahab and Another – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:P. Rajamanickam, P. Rajaraman, Abdul Ghani, Advocates.

Judgment :-

Both the appeals have been filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Vellore and Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras-1 for enhancement of sentence under Section 377(2) Criminal Procedure Code.

2.The main question involved in both the appeals is about the maintainability of the appeals. My attention was drawn to the decision of a Bench of this Court inAssistant Collector of Central Excise (Preventive) Madrasv.V. Krishnamurthy (1)wherein Natarajan, J. and Ratnavel Pandian, J. have held that an appeal preferred by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise under Section 377(2), Cr. P.C. through his Counsel, on the ground of inadequacy of sentence awarded, is not competent, and is liable to be dismissed for that reason. In view of the Bench judgment, these two appeals have to be dismissed on the ground that the Assistant Collector of Central Excise is not competent to file the appeals for enhancement of sentence under Section 377(2), Cr. P.C. Hence dismissed.

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