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

1986 Supreme(Sikk) 3

J.K.MOHANTY
STATE OF SIKKIM – Appellant
Versus
DAWA TSHERING BHUTIA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
N.B.Kharga, Narayan P.Sharma, V.J.RAO

J. K. MOHANTY, J.


( 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














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