https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198618 In an appeal properly before it, the Supreme Court held that the statutory limits on sentence enhancement in ordinary criminal appeals did not restrict its wider appellate authority, and that Article 142 could be invoked to do complete justice. It also held that the accused could not reopen the finding of guilt merely because sentence enhancement was in issue. On the facts, the Court found the five-year rigorous imprisonment imposed under the TADA offence inadequate and enhanced the sentence to ten years' imprisonment, while maintaining the conviction. en-us Mon, 02 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Feb 2018 10:21:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198618 In an appeal properly before it, the Supreme Court held that the statutory limits on sentence enhancement in ordinary criminal appeals did not restrict its wider appellate authority, and that Article 142 could be invoked to do complete justice. It also held that the accused could not reopen the finding of guilt merely because sentence enhancement was in issue. On the facts, the Court found the five-year rigorous imprisonment imposed under the TADA offence inadequate and enhanced the sentence to ten years' imprisonment, while maintaining the conviction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 02 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198618