Sikkim Court September 1998 Judgments
Anand Bardewa Vs. State of Sikkim
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Sep-04-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1804
ORDERAnup Deb, Actg. C.J.1. By filing this revision petition the accused, Anand Bardewa has challenged the order dated 27-3-1998 passed in the Criminal Case No. 136 of 1997 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North, Gangtok whereby the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month for an offence under Section 380/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.).2. In the present case, the accused pleaded guilty to the charges. Various grounds have been taken. The accused is very young and he did not understand the intent and purport of the charge. It is further alleged that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate failed to direct the accused to engage a lawyer at the State expense. He has also alleged that the prosecution has given assurance to the accused that they shall take a lenient view if the accused pleads guilty. Af...
Tag this Judgment!ishwar Das Darjee Vs. State of Sikkim
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Sep-04-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4447
ORDERAnup Deb, Acting C.J.1. By filing this revision application, the accused has challenged the Order dated 23-2-1998 passed in Criminal Case No. 208 of 1997 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North, Gangtok whereby the accused had been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- or in default of payment of fine the accused was to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for an offence under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.). The accused has also been convicted for offence under Section 408 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and in default of payment of fine the accused was to undergo further simple imprsonment for six months and the sentences were to run concurrently.2. The ground taken is that the accused was deaf and as such the accused did not understand the intent and purport of the charge.3. It appears from the order dated 11-2-1998 that the accused made prayer to engage a counsel and the next date was fixed on 23-2-19...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›