Skip to content


Ram Singh Vishnoi S/O Shri Ram Chandra at Present Ganna Supervisor in Sugar Mill Vs. State of Uttaranchal and R.S. Tomar S/O Shri Chandan Singh at Present Principal Manager in Sugar Mill - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Criminal

Court

Uttaranchal High Court

Decided On

Judge

Appellant

Ram Singh Vishnoi S/O Shri Ram Chandra at Present Ganna Supervisor in Sugar Mill

Respondent

State of Uttaranchal and R.S. Tomar S/O Shri Chandan Singh at Present Principal Manager in Sugar Mil

Disposition

Petition dismissed

Cases Referred

State v. Ram Singh Vishnoi and Ors.

Excerpt:


.....state government in favour of the respondents-jindal and kalyani -- as discussed above, rule 35 only permits the state government to take additional factor of the "end use" of the minerals and not the existing investments made by the applicants. moreover, relying on the existing investments made, the respondents also does not satisfy the requirements under section 11(3)(d) which talks solely about proposed investments to be made and not the existing ones.[para 44] e) whether the criterion of "captive consumption" referred to in tata iron and steel co. ltd. vs. union of india, (1996) 9 scc 709, have any application in this case despite not being one of the factors referred to in section 11 (3) of the mmdr act or rule 35 of the mc rules -- we have already held that section 11(3) specifies the matter relevant for purposes of second proviso to section 11(2). we also referred to the committee's report. in accordance with the recommendation in the said report, section 11(3)(d) was added as part of the substitution of section 11 in the year 1999. sub-section (d) provides that "the investment which the applicant proposes to make in the mines and in the industry based on minerals" and..........jr. div./judicial magistrate, kashipur.2. heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit on record.3. brief facts of the case are that on 09.09.1991, a first information report (annexure-1) was lodged by chief cane officer of kisan co-operative sugar mill, nadehi, against the three accused namely dharamveer, vinod kumar (resident of meerpur), and vinod kumar (resident of malakpur), in respect of offences punishable under sections 408, 420, 467 and 468 i.p.c., which pertains to fabrication and forgery of cane slips, relating to payment of cane price to cane growers. after investigation of said first information report, on the basis of which crime no. 239 of 1991, was registered, charge-sheet in question was filed against the petitioner-rams singh vishnoi. a separate charge-sheet appears to have been filed against other accused including those named in the first information report.4. learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this court to annexure-4 to the petition, which is copy of order, passed by joint cane commissioner, refusing the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. learned counsel for the state, pointed out that.....

Judgment:


Prafulla C. Pant, J.

1. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 120 of 2004 State v. Ram Singh Vishnoi and Ors. relating to offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473 and 120B I.P.C., pending in the court of Civil Judge, Jr. Div./Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit on record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.09.1991, a First Information Report (annexure-1) was lodged by Chief Cane Officer of Kisan Co-operative Sugar Mill, Nadehi, against the three accused namely Dharamveer, Vinod Kumar (resident of Meerpur), and Vinod Kumar (resident of Malakpur), in respect of offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C., which pertains to fabrication and forgery of cane slips, relating to payment of cane price to cane growers. After investigation of said First Information Report, on the basis of which crime No. 239 of 1991, was registered, charge-sheet in question was filed against the petitioner-Rams Singh Vishnoi. A separate charge-sheet appears to have been filed against other accused including those named in the First Information Report.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to annexure-4 to the petition, which is copy of order, passed by Joint Cane Commissioner, refusing the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the State, pointed out that said order pertains to prosecution in respect of offence punishable under Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is argued on behalf of the State that no permission was required in connection with the forgery, committed by the petitioner, which was not an act in discharge of the official duty.

5. Having considered submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case.

6. Therefore, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is dismissed with the observation that the points raised by the petitioner, before this Court as to his innocence, can be raised during trial before the trial court. And it is further observed that if the petitioner is not on bail, and surrenders before the court concerned, his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //