https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287288 Where conviction on one count was set aside but conviction on another count was affirmed, the court treated the two findings as distinct offences and held that sentence could be imposed on the affirmed count even though the trial court had not separately sentenced it. That order was not an enhancement of an existing sentence, because no sentence had previously been passed on that count; it was a consequential order flowing from affirmance of guilt. The court also held that the absence of a formal notice under the revisional enhancement provision did not invalidate the order, because the accused was heard on both conviction and sentence and suffered no prejudice. en-us Tue, 13 Dec 1955 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Apr 2020 10:25:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287288 Where conviction on one count was set aside but conviction on another count was affirmed, the court treated the two findings as distinct offences and held that sentence could be imposed on the affirmed count even though the trial court had not separately sentenced it. That order was not an enhancement of an existing sentence, because no sentence had previously been passed on that count; it was a consequential order flowing from affirmance of guilt. The court also held that the absence of a formal notice under the revisional enhancement provision did not invalidate the order, because the accused was heard on both conviction and sentence and suffered no prejudice. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 13 Dec 1955 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287288