Appellant challenged sentence modification reducing imprisonment to one day in cheque-bouncing case. Court found no illegality in lower appellate Court's discretion.
Criminal Revision 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHT DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1314 OF 2010
Between:
Batchu Yugandar Yadav
… PETITIONER
And
Neelisetty Sridevi and another
… RESPONDENTS
This Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1314 OF 2010
ORDER:
1. The lower appellate Court while confirming guilt of the accused/appellant/respondent No.1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act altered sentence of imprisonment from four months to one day till rising of Court. The lower appellate Court modified the sentence of imprisonment having regard to facts of the case and after exercising it’s discretion. There is no illegality or irregularity or even impropriety in the order passed by the lower
appellate Court. There are no grounds in law to interfere with the said order herein.
2. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
July 28, 2010 MD
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1314 OF 2010
July 28, 2010
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lower appellate Court's modification of imprisonment sentence from four months to one day till rising of Court was arbitrary or illegal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Batchu Yugandar Yadav
Neelisetty Sridevi and another
Samudrala Govindarajulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
