legal representation - The Legal Chamber

Compromise Between Parties Leads to Early Release as Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Criminal Appeal

26Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Compromise Between Parties Leads to Early Release as Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Criminal Appeal

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence to the period already undergone (two years and three months) while upholding the conviction. Notice had been limited to quantum of sentence. The Court considered the compromise between parties and the incarceration period served, modifying the sentence accordingly with direction for immediate release if not required in other cases. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, Venkatesh and another individual, were originally convicted by the learned III-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, in S.C. No.460/2016 on November 3, 2020. The charges stemmed from Crime No.103/2016, under which they were found guilty of offenses under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to voluntarily causing g...

Lawyer’s Reputation Restored: Supreme Court Wipes Clean High Court’s “Professional Impropriety” Remark

The Supreme Court expunged adverse remarks made by the High Court against an advocate, holding that such observations could have been avoided. The Court considered the possibility of a bona fide omission by the counsel, who was not involved in the connected case, and ruled that the expunction of the adverse comments was warranted in the circumstances of the case. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, an advocate named Siddharth Gupta, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on behalf of his clients. During the proceedings, he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Index Medical College Hospital & Research Centre. The Division Bench of the High Court, in its final order, made adverse observations against the appellant, noting that his conduct "bor...

Conduct Matters: Supreme Court Confirms Auction Sale but Orders Buyer to Pay Extra ₹25 Lakh/Acre

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision confirming the validity of a court-auctioned property sale. It endorsed the directions for a fresh survey to demarcate the exact purchased area and for the auction purchaser to pay additional consideration, citing his conduct, while ruling that subsequent challenges to the sale were barred by law. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from a debt recovery proceeding initiated by the Karnataka State Financial Corporation (KSFC) against a company, for which the respondent, G.M. Krishna, was a guarantor. Following a decree, KSFC attached the respondent's agricultural land for auction. The appellant, R. Raghu, emerged as the highest bidder in a court auction in 2003, and a sale certificate was subsequently issued. The responden...