Find a Lawyer

SHER BAHADUR versus THE STATE

Section 561A and 439 of a Prohibition (Enforcement) Order (4 of 1979) of the Criminal Code of Conduct (CRPC), Article 3/4 of the Sessions Court convicted by a magistrate on review by the state There was no doubt that the Sessions Court had increased, but this record did not show that he was offered an opportunity to stand trial against the increase in sentence since the accused's prejudice was ordered, as the sentence increased. Was being asked, so the accused should have specifically asked why he should be punished. He was not entitled to show cause against his sentence, neither to be extended nor to the cause. The fact that his presence was marked on the order sheet did not mean that he knew that the court was extending his sentence and that the absence of such an opportunity for a hearing would thus result in the trial court's order of justice. The misdemeanor convictions resulted in increased punishment for the accused and were subsequently set aside for being illegal. lawer from fb area from Samma Satta lawyer