In a revisional application, the High Court dismissed the plea challenging a conviction for simple imprisonment and compensation under Section 357 CrPC, finding no irregularity warranting interference.
The revisional application was dismissed on merits.
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.
8.8.2022 ks. Ct. 40, sl.35
CRR 2551 of 2012
Sridhar Bhattacharya & Bhattacharjee
vs State of West Bengal & Anr.
Mrs. Sujata Das
… For the State.
Mrs. Sujata Das, learned Advocate appears on behalf of the State.
None appears on behalf of the petitioner.
The original order was passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Krishnagar, Nadia convicting the petitioner to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and shall also liable to pay Rs.1,40,000/- to the complainant in five equal installments towards compensation under Section 357 of the Cr.PC, within seven months from the date of the order. The said judgment was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Nadia. There are concurrent findings of the two Courts below. There is no irregularity or flaw, which demands interference of this Court. Accordingly, the instant revisional application stands dismissed on merits.
(Sugato Majumdar, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revisional application requires interference due to irregularity or flaw in the lower courts’ conviction and compensation order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sridhar Bhattacharya & Bhattacharjee
State of West Bengal
Sugato Majumdar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
