A C NAIR v. SUJATMIYA BACHUMIYA SAIYED
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH Date of decision: 30/04/2002 ORAL JUDGEMENT
1.(cid:9)Heard ld. counsel Mr. M.R. Shah for the petitioner- original complainant, Mr. K.B. Anandjiwala for Respondent No.1- accused and Ld. APP Mr. Desai for Respondent No.2 State.
2.(cid:9)Original complainant has preferred this Revision Application with a prayer to enhance the sentence imposed by the trial Court. Trial Court, vide judgment dated
30.9.1996 in Criminal Case No. 1954/1994, has held Respondent No.1 accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 135 of Customs Act and sentenced him to suffer R/I for 3 Years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/, I/d to undergo further R/I for 6 months. Respondent No.1 accused is also held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC and same quantum of punishment has been imposed on him. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3.(cid:9)I have considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case available on record. Accused has been held guilty on 30.9.1996 and was facing trial since 1992. All other co-accused have been acquitted. The accused has already undergone sentence. Afer lapse of several years and actual order of conviction in the year 1996, enhancement of puishment would be highly improper and injudicious. Even on merits, this is not a cse for enhancement of sentence and, therefore, prayer to enhance punishment requires to be rejected.
4.(cid:9)In the result, Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
30.4.2002(cid:9) (cid:9)[ C.K. BUCH, J ] *rawal (cid:9) (cid:9)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120B.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 30 Apr 2002. The bench was C K BUCH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.