Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

The State Rep. By vs A-1 : Syed Sanaullah Alias on 30 March, 2016

         IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CHIEF
        METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BANGALORE CITY

           DATED THIS THE   30TH MARCH 2016

         PRESENT :Smt. M. LATHAKUMARI
                             M.A.,LL.M.
                  VI ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE.


       JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.

Case No.           : CC.No.5571/2016

Date of offence    : 20.05.2011

Complainant        : The State rep. by
                      PSI of Wilson Garden PS

Accused             :    A-1 : Syed Sanaullah alias
                        Sana S/o.Syed Inayathullah,
                        No.83, H.Siddaiah Road,
                        Bangalore.

                        A-2: Fayaz Shareef alias
                        Payu S/o.Anwar shareef,
                        No.146, 7th Cross,
                        H.Siddaiah Road, Bangalore.

Offence            : U/s.323,324 r/w. 34
                     of IPC

Plea               : Accused No.1 and 2 pleaded
                      guilty

Final order        : Accused No.1 and 2 are
                      Convicted
                          2




Date of Order      : 30.03.2016.
                    ** ** **



    BRIEF STATEMENT OF    REASONS FOR DECISION


    Complainant-police have filed this       charge

sheet against accused no.1 and 2     alleging that

accused no.1 and 2 are picked up quarrel with

CW-1 and assaulted CW-1 with stone and hands and

thereby committed the offences referred supra.

Accused submitted that, accused no.1 and 2 are

pleaded guilty. I am satisfied that accused by

knowing the consequences of pleading guilty of

the alleged offences, they were pleaded guilty

voluntarily    without   any   pressure   from   any

authorities.

     2. Heard accused with regard to sentence

of the accused no.1 and 2.      Accused No.1 and 2

submits that they were the only bread earner in

their family    and hence pray for his acquittal
                               3




by   imposing    nominal     penalty.   Considering   all

these,   I proceed to pass the following:-

                           ORDER

Acting U/s.248(2) of Cr.P.C accused no.1 and 2 found guilty for the offences punishable U/s.323,324 r/w. 34 of IPC.

Accused No.1 and 2 are convicted with a fine of Rs.2,000-00/- each (Rupees Two thousand each).

Bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 stands cancelled.

(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 30th March 2016).

(M. LATHAKUMARI) VI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore City. 4 Annexure

1. Witnesses examined for the prosecution:

Nil.

2.Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:

Nil.

3. Material objects:

Nil.
VI ADDL.C.M.M.BANGALORE CITY. 5 (Judgment pronounced in the open court) ORDER Acting U/s.248(2) of Cr.P.C accused no.1 and 2 found guilty for the offences punishable U/s.323,324 r/w. 34 of IPC. Accused No.1 and 2 are convicted with a fine of Rs.2,000-00/- each (Rupees Two thousand each).

Bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 stands cancelled.

(Vide Separate Order) (M. LATHAKUMARI) VI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore City. 6