In a dismissed revision, the Single Bench upheld the conviction and sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine imposed for cheating and conspiracy, finding no illegality in the concurrent findings of facts.
The revision is dismissed; the Convict must attend to serve sentence.
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.
. 5‘xél/ C
V‘ ‘
m mnHmH ‘goURT 6F mmATURE AT BIMsPUR ' (6.36.) ar.névisien uo.$i:\ as 29m ( Mencrandum of Criminal Revision U/s 397 r/w 491 gppni‘gmmr’ : Panch§m 5/9 £13m5 IVaged amt 45 (ACCUSED) ‘ r re;idant 0f Indra. A Nagar, (In JAIL) :aeis.j and” °
c:-.P.C.I
Versus me state of chuattiayarh, through the pi‘strict Magistrate Rajnandgaon o
‘
nan-AppmcAM d _ §
‘
x.
@¥
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No.322 of 2001
APPLICANTI: Pancham (Appellant)/ (Accused) (InJail)
Versus
NON—APPLICANT: The State of Chhattisgarh
{CriminalrevisionunderSection397/401ofCr.PVC.}
Present:
None present for the appiicant.
Miss Sangeeta Mishra, PanelLawyerfortheState.
Sinqle Bench: Hon’bleMr.T.P.Sharma,J
A ORDER s
(7-9—2012)
iv)
Page 2 of 2
Cr.R.No.322/2001
cow. The matter has been reported and investigated. Charge sheet was filed. After providing opportunity of hearing, thetrialCourthasconvicted& sentenced the applicant in the aforesaidmannerwhichhasbeenaffirmed by the appellate Court. On perusai of record. l do not find any iilegality in the concurrent finding of facts ofboththeCourtsbelow in convicting the applicant under Sections 420 & 120BoftheIPC.
. As regards the question of sentence, considering the factum of cheating that too a public servant,even i do not find any ground for taking lenient vie‘w in sentencing the applicant.
Soma
. Consequently, the revision is dismissed. The trial Court shall immediately take appropriate steps for attendance of the applicant for serving the sent‘ehcesimposed upon him.
I v
Sd/- i
T.P. Sharma
italge,,,
x;si
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pancham
The State of Chhattisgarh
T.P. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
