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

2020 Supreme(Ori) 14

D.DASH
Prasanta Lenka – Appellant
Versus
Birendra Nath Rana – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S. Mishra, Advocate, S. Nanda, Advocate, S.K. Samantaray, Advocate, S. Modi, Advocate, E. Agarwal, Advocate, D. Samal, Advocate, N. Singh, Advocate, S.K. Giri, Advocate, A. Rout, Advocate
Cases Referred
Bir Singh Vrs. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) AIR(SC) 2446
K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan, (2007) 3 ApexCJ 429 (SC)
K.S. Subramani Vrs. K. Damodara Naidu, (2015) 1 SCC(Cri) 576
Kamala S. vs. Vidyadharan M.J. & another, (2007) 2 ApexCJ 96 (SC)
Kishan Rao vs. Shankargouda, (2018) 2 OrissaLR 733 (SC)
Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 1 ApexCJ 412 (SC)
Kumar Experts Vrs. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513
M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs. State of Kerala and another, (2006) 6 SCC 39
M/s. Shree Daneshwari Traders Vrs. Sanjay Jain, (2019) AIR(SC) 4003
Prem Thakur Vrs. State of Punjab, (1983) AIR(SC) 61
Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan, (2010) 2 ApexCJ 285 (SC)
Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vrs. State of Gujarat, (2019) AIR(SC)(Cri) 775
Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao vs. Indian Renewable Energy, (2016) 2 OrissaLR 1085 (SC)
T. Nagappa Vrs. Y.R. Muralidhar, (2008) 2 SCC(Cri) 677
Uttam Ram Vrs. Devinder Singh Hudan, (2019) AIRONLINE(SC) 1285

JUDGMENT

D Dash, J. - The petitioner, by filing this revision, has called in question the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 23.7.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Balasore in Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2015 by which the judgment of conviction of the petitioner for commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short, called "the N.I. Act") and the order of sentence as well as the direction for payment of compensation passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Jaleswar on 30.11.2015 in I.C.C. No. 34 of 2015 have been confirmed.

    The opposite party (complainant) had filed the complaint arraigning the petitioner (accused) alleging the commission of offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act. The trial court having convicted the accused for commission of offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay compensation of Rs.6.00 lakh with the default stipulation as to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

    Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner (accused) had filed the appeal. The appellate court while confirming the finding of conviction as returned by the trial court has

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