PAUL GEORGE Vs. STATE
LAWS(SC)-2002-1-111
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
January 21,2002
PAUL GEORGE
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
S N MUKHERJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION VS. K S GANDHI [REFERRED]
M J SIVANI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED]
STATE OF A.P. V. RAJAGOPALA RAO [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL VS. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-1-133] [REFERRED TO]NISHA SHARMA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-10-101] [REFERRED TO]
SATYADEV AND ORS. VS. MOHAN LAL AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-232] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJESH PANDEY VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2020-7-96] [REFERRED TO]
HAMID ALI VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2020-7-78] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH SAGHAR AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2019-12-400] [REFERRED TO]
HARIRAM VERMA & 4 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-598] [REFERRED]
MUHAMMAD VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-106] [REFERRED]
CHHOTE LAL KUSHWAHA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK DAS VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2003-1-21] [FOLLOWED ON]
DR. AMRESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
NAJIM VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-194] [REFERRED TO]
KHAMANI AND 4 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2019-12-397] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH SAGHAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-12-253] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL ANSAL VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2009-9-194] [REFERRED TO]
GEETA SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-131] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. BRINDA RAY (NEE NAG) VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2010-8-206] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNI DEVI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-8-32] [REFERRED TO]
PANCH LAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-2-181] [REFERRED TO]
LAL BABU SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-2-212] [REFERRED TO]
VIJENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-284] [REFERRED TO]
GIRJESH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-5] [REFERRED TO]
EITA INDIA LIMITED VS. NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2002-2-14] [REFERRED 4.]
RAM BALAK SHAHU VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-12-196] [REFERRED TO]
Z.A. HASHMI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-337] [REFERRED TO]
DILSHAD HUSAIN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-338] [REFERRED TO]
BHOLA NATH VERMA D VS. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR NAGAR [LAWS(ALL)-2002-5-118] [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
PRAGTI DEVI VS. STATE OF U.P. & 8 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAMVEER AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-166] [REFERRED]
DAL VEER VERMA AND 14 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2019-12-395] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA @ BABLU DIXIT VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI KAM DEO DAS VS. THE UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MANIP)-2015-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.)This is an appeal against the order dated September 25, 2001 passed by the Delhi High Court, dismissing Criminal Revision No. 555 of 2001 preferred by the appellant, passing the following order :
"I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in the judgment under challenge.
Dismissed"
(3.)The appellant has been convicted under Section 279 read with Section 304-A, IPC and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for a period of ten days, on the first count and to simple imprisonment for nine months and a fine of Rs. 4,000/-, in default one month's further simple imprisonment, on the latter count. The appeal preferred against conviction and the sentence was dismissed as well as the revision.
(2.)This is an appeal against the order dated September 25, 2001 passed by the Delhi High Court, dismissing Criminal Revision No. 555 of 2001 preferred by the appellant, passing the following order :
"I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in the judgment under challenge.
Dismissed"
(3.)The appellant has been convicted under Section 279 read with Section 304-A, IPC and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for a period of ten days, on the first count and to simple imprisonment for nine months and a fine of Rs. 4,000/-, in default one month's further simple imprisonment, on the latter count. The appeal preferred against conviction and the sentence was dismissed as well as the revision.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.