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



ORDER

1. The crop was raised by the petitioner and it was harvested by him before possession was restored to the opposite party. There was therefore no disobedience of the order prohibiting the petitioner from interfering with the possession of the opposite party and the conviction under Section 188 (2), Penal Code, is unsustainable. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner are, therefore, set aside and his bail bonds will be cancelled.

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