The High Court dismissed three connected criminal revision applications challenging an appeal court order that suspended the applicant's sentences subject to a fine deposit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
:1:
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.47 OF 2006
WITH 48/2006 AND 49/2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders.
of Coram, appearance, Court’s
orders or directions and
Registrar’s orders.
Mr.Thomos Jacob for the applicant.
Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP. for the State.
CORAM : R.S. MOHITE,J.
DATED : 13/2/2006.
P.C.
1. These revision applications are
filed against the order passed by the
Sessions Court suspending the sentence
subject to deposit of part payment of
the fine amount. If three revisions
applications are put together the total
cheque amount was Rs.50/-lacs. The
total amount of fine imposed in all the
three matters by the trial court was
Rs.6,20,000/-. The appeal court
granted suspension of sentence subject
to deposit of Rs.4,50,000/-. There is
no infirmity in the order which has
been passed by the appeal court. The
:2:
impugned orders are in fact legal
orders and revision applications would
lie against the said orders. Hence,
revision applications are dismissed.
(R. S. MOHITE, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether revisions are maintainable against an appeal court order suspending sentence to deposit part of fine.
Applicant
State
R.S. MOHITE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court