Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. SUNDRESH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ
RAJEEV KHANDELWAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction and outcome of the appellant's review petition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments against the imposition of costs. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's reasoning regarding the law and the binding nature of the precedent. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. final decision on the appeal. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2.The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 . His appeal before the Sessions Court was dismissed. A review petition was thereafter preferred before the High Court by the appellant. During the pendency of the revision, the appellant and the respondent entered into an agreement. In view of the same, the appellant was acquitted, subject to the condition that he shall deposit the cost with the State Legal Services Authority in accordance with the judgment of this Court in Signature Not VerifiedDamodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663.
3. The short issue for consideration in this appeal is with respect to the cost imposed by the High Court by placing reliance upon the aforementioned judgment.
4.Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel a
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
