Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, J
Sharad Hiru Kolambe – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeal and affirmance of convictions. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. insight into financial conditions impacting sentencing. (Para 5) |
| 3. principles governing default sentence and financial considerations. (Para 7 , 14 , 16) |
| 4. court's reasoning on default sentences and their enforcement. (Para 12 , 15) |
| 5. final decisions modifying sentencing in response to circumstances. (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
1. Delay in filing Special Leave Petition condoned. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the decision dated 17.12.2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.906 of 2006 affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant (original accused No.6) for offences Reason:
punishable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short) as well as the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the MCOC Act). Since the emphasis in the present appeal was placed on the nature of default sentences passed against the appellant, we confine ourselves to bare outline of facts. The appellant along with other co-accused was tried and convicted by the Special Judge [the MCOC Act] Thane in M.C.O.C. Special Case No.3 of 2002 vide ju
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
