Skip to content


State of Karnataka Vs. Surender Kotiankar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberSpecial Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 1288 to 1301 of 1983
Judge
Reported in1984CriLJ1727; 1984(2)Crimes440(SC); 1984(2)SCALE232; (1984)4SCC370; [1985]1SCR349
ActsConstitution of India - Article 136
AppellantState of Karnataka
RespondentSurender Kotiankar
Advocates: K.L. Sharma and; M. Veerappa, Advs
Prior historyFrom the Judgment and Order dated January 31, 1983 of the Karnataka High Court in Crl. Appeal Nos. 461 to 474 of 1981--
Excerpt:
.....has no independent use in the business conducted by the assesses, as machinery installed for the purpose of the second para of cl. (vi) of s. 10 (2). - we are prima facie satisfied that the sentences are inadequate and that the lenient sentences are the result of misplaced sympathy......till the rising of the court and a fine of either rs. 50 or rs. 100. the state preferred appeals to the high court for enhancement of the sentences. the appeals were dismissed on the ground that the accused was a young man who had already been punished sufficiently by the loss of his job and also in view of the circumstance that more than ten years had elapsed since the date of offence. we are prima facie satisfied that the sentences are inadequate and that the lenient sentences are the result of misplaced sympathy. we do not however propose to proceed further in the matter in the exercise of our jurisdiction under article 136 as the state of karnataka who is the petitioner before us has not chosen to file any papers before us apart from the judgment of the high court. the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Chinnappa Reddy, J.

1. On pleas of guilty, the respondent was convicted of several charges Under Sections 408 and 477A and sentenced in each case, by the Trial Magistrate, to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of either Rs. 50 or Rs. 100. The State Preferred appeals to the High Court for enhancement of the sentences. The appeals were dismissed on the ground that the accused was a young man who had already been punished sufficiently by the loss of his job and also in view of the circumstance that more than ten years had elapsed since the date of offence. We are prima facie satisfied that the sentences are inadequate and that the lenient sentences are the result of misplaced sympathy. We do not however propose to proceed further in the matter in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 as the State of Karnataka who is the petitioner before us has not chosen to file any papers before us apart from the judgment of the High Court. The least that the petitioner could have done to give us a full picture of the facts was to file copies of the charge-sheets and the charges and copies of the judgments of the Trial Court in the different cases. We do not think that we will be justified in issuing a show-cause notice to the respondents when no attempt has been made to place all the facts before us by filing the necessary documents. Apparently there is no purposefulness in the filing of these petitions. They are accordingly dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //