The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the suspension of sentence subject to 50% fine deposit. The court held that no manifest error was found in the lower court's discretion.
Extension of time for payment by six weeks; writ petition dismissed.
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
abs
FARAD CONTINUATION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1666 OF 2009
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders
Mr. D.A. Patil i/b Mr. A.K. Suryawanshi for the petitioner. Mr. S.V. Gajare, A.P.P. for the State.
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, JJ.
DATE : 7TH NOVEMBER 2009
P.C. :
Instruments Act. The petitioner filed an appeal
2
before the Court of Sessions and therein made an application for suspension of the sentence and fine during the pendency of appeal. The application was partly allowed and the sentence and fine was suspended subject to his depositing 50% of the amount of fine/compensation in the court. That order is impugned in this writ petition.
3
event, in writ jurisdiction this Court cannot substitute its discretion for the discretion exercised by the learned Sessions Judge in the absence of any perversity or manifest error in the order. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the time for payment is extended by 6 weeks from today.
(D.G. KARNIK, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Sessions Judge erred in directing the deposition of 50% of the total fine amount for suspending the sentence in the appeal.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
State
D.G. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
