Pritamdas Parsharam Narsinghani v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Electricity Act, 2003 s. 135(1)(b)
Judgment
Mr.Prakash Naik, Advocate, for the Appellant. Mrs.M.H. Mhatre, APP, for the State. : A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM DATED : 21ST : 21ST NOVEMBER, 2007. NOVEMBER, 2007. DATED DATED : 21ST NOVEMBER, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.:
Heard. Admit.
The appellant is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 135(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for one month and fine of Rs.22,000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for one month.
The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the fine amount has been deposited in the Court below. The appellant was on bail during the trial and has not misused the liberty. -2-
Hence, I order that the appellant be released on bail on the same terms and conditions on which he was released by the Sessions Court during pendency of the trial on execution of fresh bail bonds. ...
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Electricity Act, 2003 — s. 135(1)(b).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 21 Nov 2007. The bench was A P DESHPANDE.
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.