The appellant challenged the conviction of respondent no. 1 for an offence under Section 85 of the E.S.I. Act, 1948. The single judge dismissed the appeal holding that the appeal abated as the sole proprietor of respondent no. 2 had expired before the hearing.
The criminal appeal was dismissed as abated.
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.
901.APEAL298_2013.doc
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 298 OF 2013
Employees State Insurance Corporation … Appellant
vs.
Ashok Channappa Bhasme & Ors. … Respondents
Mr. P.M. Palshikar, Advocate for the Appellant. Smt. A.A. Mane, APP for the State.
CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 16th September, 2014.
P.C.
Pursuant to the order passed yesterday, i.e., 15th September, 2014,
the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondents were charged and tried under section 85 of the E.S.I. Act, 1948, which prescribes punishment which may extend to 3 years. There is no alternative to the punishment, i.e., imprisonment or fine.
(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)
1 of 1
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Employees State Insurance Corporation
Ashok Channappa Bhasme
Respondent No. 2
Mridula Bhatkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
