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

2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 9090

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.P.SANDESH
SRI NAZIR AHEMED @ ABDUL NAZIR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:T N VISWANATHA ,Respondent Advocate:

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State.

2. The present revision petition is filed against the order of the Trial Court convicting and sentencing accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 323 and 324 of IPC and confirming and modifying the order of the Trial Court by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.5003/2019, wherein sentence is modified in respect of the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC, wherein accused No.1 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- instead of sentence of six months and enhanced the fine from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- confirming the conviction and sentence in respect of all the offences.

3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner before this Court is that both the Courts failed to take note of that the mandatory requirement of Sections 323, 324 and 353 of IPC has not been established by the prosecution as against the petitioner for conviction. In the absence of required ingredients for punishment under the said mandatory provision, the Courts below ought to have acquitted the petitioner. P.W.1 to P.W.3

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