Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: Dop Raj Subba

Disposition Petition allowed Court Sikkim Decided May 29, 2000
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/497047

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Sikkim High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Revision 33 of 2000
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - 1. This criminal revision was registered by this Court suo motu to be satisfied as to the correctness, legality and propriety of the order dated 23rd February, 2000 passed in Criminal Case No.

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Petition allowed
Acts & sections
Sikkim Excise Act, 1992 - Sections 34

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Dop Raj Subba

Advocate S.P. Wangdi, P.P. and; Karma Thinlay, Asstt. Govt. Adv.

Respondent

Advocate N.B. Kharga, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Sikkim Excise Act, 1992 - Sections 34
Reported In
2001CriLJ3096

Excerpt

- - 1. this criminal revision was registered by this court suo motu to be satisfied as to the correctness, legality and propriety of the order dated 23rd february, 2000 passed in criminal case no.orderanup deb, j.1. this criminal revision was registered by this court suo motu to be satisfied as to the correctness, legality and propriety of the order dated 23rd february, 2000 passed in criminal case no. 8 of 2000 by the judicial magistrate, east, whereby for the offence under section 34(a) of the sikkim excise act, 1992, the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further si for three months. section 34(a) provides that the offence mentioned therein shall be liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one thousand rupees but in no case the court shall award a sentence of imprisonment less than three months and a fine of five hundred rupees. the order of sentence by the learned judicial magistrate is contrary to the specific statutory provision and, therefore, deserves to be set aside.2. in the result, the criminal revision is allowed, the order dated 23rd february, 2000 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court of judicial magistrate, east to proceed further according to law. accused person shall be present in the court of judicial magistrate, east on 12-6-2000.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Anup Deb, J.

1. This criminal revision was registered by this Court suo motu to be satisfied as to the correctness, legality and propriety of the order dated 23rd February, 2000 passed in Criminal Case No. 8 of 2000 by the Judicial Magistrate, East, whereby for the offence under Section 34(a) of the Sikkim Excise Act, 1992, the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further SI for three months. Section 34(a) provides that the offence mentioned therein shall be liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one thousand rupees but in no case the Court shall award a sentence of imprisonment less than three months and a fine of five hundred rupees. The order of sentence by the learned Judicial Magistrate is contrary to the specific statutory provision and, therefore, deserves to be set aside.

2. In the result, the Criminal Revision is allowed, the order dated 23rd February, 2000 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, East to proceed further according to law. Accused person shall be present in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, East on 12-6-2000.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial