STATE Vs. MAHADEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter when came up for admission before this bench on 8. 3. 2001, heard the learned State Public Prosecutor, but on the request of the learned Counsel for the respondent-accused, this matter was adjourned till today, as the learned Counsel for respondent-accused sought for time to consult his counter-part and make his submissions. Hence, this matter coming on for admission again this day, the appeal is taken up for hearing.

(2.) WE have heard Sri Mohan Shantana Goudar, learned Statepublic Prosecutor and Sri S. V. Tilgul, learned Counsel for the respondent-accused.

(3.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order ofconviction dated 28. 7. 2000 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, shimoga, Respondent-accused was convicted by the learned prl. CJ. M, Shimoga for an offence under Section 326 of I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of the fine, he has to further undergo r. I. for one month. The respondent-accused aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction preferred an appeal in Crl. A. No. 26/96. The learned Sessions Judge, Shimoga has confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence by deleting the sentence of imprisonment, instead sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -. In this background, the State has questioned only the judgment of the learned Sessions judge, Shimoga, who has modified the sentence.