Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
James Albert Raj – Appellant
Versus
State, Rep. by the SHO, Grand Bazaar PS, Through Public Prosecutor, Puducherry. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused misappropriated funds due to bank error. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. prosecution provided solid evidence of wrongful acts. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. accused faced appropriate legal scrutiny. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. arguments highlighted intent and misbelief about funds. (Para 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. court emphasized on obligation to return funds. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. sentence modified, obligation to pay fines established. (Para 16 , 18 , 19) |
COMMON ORDER
Both of these Criminal Revision Cases originate from the same judgment, dated 25.02.2015, in S.T.R.No.329 of 2011 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Puducherry, which was upheld by two separate judgments dated 12.11.2021 in Crl.A.Nos.11 & 12 of 2015 by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge at Puducherry. In these proceedings, both revision petitioners, as accused Nos.1 and 2, were found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 403 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years of Simple Imprisonment, along with a direction to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.5,00,000/- each).
2. The prosecution's case is that on 24.07.2010, a complaint was received from the ING Vysysa Bank Limited
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
