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

2016 Supreme(Mad) 95

M.VENUGOPAL
M. Senthil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
S. Periyasamy – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Respondent: Mr. V. Karthikeyan for M/s. V. Perumal.

ORDER :

1. Heard both sides.

2. The Revision Petitioner/Appellant/Accused has focused the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order, dated 1.12.2015 in CRL M.P. No. 1306 of 2015 in C.A. No. 82 of 2015, passed by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur. The Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur while passing the impugned order in CRL M.P. No. 1306 of 2015 in CRL Appeal No. 82 of 2015 (filed by the Revision Petitioner/Appellant/ Accused), had among other things, observed the following:-

“Heard both sides.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been convicted by the Learned Judicial Magistrate (FTC), Karuron 13.05.2015 in C.C. No. 35 of 2014 and the petitioner was sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. According to him, in the absence of the accused, the judgment and order of sentence was passed by the trial Court and immediately the trial Court issued a NBW to secure the petitioner to under go the period of sentence. He there fore prayed for suspension of the sentence passed by the trial Court till the disposal of the criminal appeal.

The respondent has raised objecti































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