J.K.MOHANTY
STATE OF SIKKIM – Appellant
Versus
DAWA TSHERING BHUTIA – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS revision has been filed by the State of Sikkim praying that sentence of fine imposed on the respondents while convicting them under S. 292, Penal Code (S. 293 perhaps has not been mentioned due to inadvertence) is not according to law. As per the I. P. C. , as it stood on the date of commission of the offence, sentence of imprisonment should have been imposed. In this case accused-respondents were prosecuted for having committed offences under Ss. 292, 293, I. P. C. and S. 14, Indian Cinematograph Act. They pleaded guilty and the Magistrate imposed fine of Rs. 100. 00 under S. 292, I. P. C. , Rs. 150. 00 under S. 292. I. P. C. and Rs. 40. 00 under S. 14, Indian Cinematograph Act. The reason for imposing sentence of fine only as mentioned in the order was that the amendment made in the Penal Code in the year 1969 making imprisonment compulsory does not apply to the State of Sikkim. According to the learned Magistrate I. P. C. as it stood on 10-7-1953 was adopted, promulgated and enforced in Sikkim by the then Maharaj of Sikkim by the Notification No. 160/u. S. dt. 10th July, 1953. The learned Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State of Sikkim sub
Collector of Customs, Madras v. Nathella Sampathu Chetty
REFERRED TO : Western Coalfields Ltd. v. Spl. Area Development Authority
C.I.T. v. T.V. Sundaram Iyenger (P) Ltd.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. M.V. Narasimhan
Bewlay v. British Bata Shoe Co.
Secretary of State for India in Council v. Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.