Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Case Brief - 4

    Uploaded by

    Diksha Raj
    9 views1 page
    The case brief discusses the case of Bhagyan Das Vs. State of Uttarakhand. It summarizes that the accused, a village development officer, was found to have misappropriated funds meant for poor villagers. The court held that while the offense was technically compoundable under Section 320 of the CrPC, the court has discretion to not allow compounding given the social impact of the crime. The court ultimately ruled that merely because an offense is listed as compoundable does not mean the court must allow compounding, and it can consider the nature of the offense in its decision.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Case Brief - 4.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The case brief discusses the case of Bhagyan Das Vs. State of Uttarakhand. It summarizes that the accused, a village development officer, was found to have misappropriated funds meant for poor villagers. The court held that while the offense was technically compoundable under Section 320 of the CrPC, the court has discretion to not allow compounding given the social impact of the crime. The court ultimately ruled that merely because an offense is listed as compoundable does not mean the court must allow compounding, and it can consider the nature of the offense in its decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    9 views1 page

    Case Brief - 4

    Uploaded by

    Diksha Raj
    The case brief discusses the case of Bhagyan Das Vs. State of Uttarakhand. It summarizes that the accused, a village development officer, was found to have misappropriated funds meant for poor villagers. The court held that while the offense was technically compoundable under Section 320 of the CrPC, the court has discretion to not allow compounding given the social impact of the crime. The court ultimately ruled that merely because an offense is listed as compoundable does not mean the court must allow compounding, and it can consider the nature of the offense in its decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    CASE BRIEF

    CASE NAME AND CASE LAW:


    Bhagyan Das Vs. State of Uttarakhand;(Section 144 of Civil
    Procedure Court,1908)
    FACTS:
    The accused was a Government servant working as village
    Development officer and was authorized to withdraw the amount
    jointly with the beneficiary concerned, but he was found indulged
    in grabbing the amount meant for the development of the poor
    villagers. Therefore, it is not a case where it leads its effects only
    to the complainant but to the society at large. The court observed
    that “Had it been a case of purely an individual nature without
    having any social impact, then this court would have thought for
    accepting an application of compounding an offence under
    Section 320 of the CrPC.”
    ISSUE:
    Whether it is mandatory to compound an offence which is given
    under Section 320 of the CrPC?
    JUDGEMENT:
    The Hon’ble Supreme Court on 11th March,2019, by a two judge
    bench of J. R.Banumathi and pronounced by J. R. Subhash
    Reddy held that merely because an offence is compoundable
    under Section 320 of the CrPC, still discretion can be exercised
    by the court having regard to the nature of an offence.

    You might also like