Skip to content


Smt. Suman W/O Shri Dheer Singh and Vijay Pal S/O Shri Mangey Ram Vs. State of Uttaranchal Through S.S.P., - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Criminal

Court

Uttaranchal High Court

Decided On

Judge

Appellant

Smt. Suman W/O Shri Dheer Singh and Vijay Pal S/O Shri Mangey Ram

Respondent

State of Uttaranchal Through S.S.P., ;station Officer and Vishal Singh, Additional Sub Divisional Ma

Disposition

Application dismissed

Cases Referred

State v. Dheer Singh and

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..........to offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 409, 120b i.p.c., pending in the court of additional chief judicial magistrate, roorkee.5. brief facts of the case are that when respondent no. 3-additional sub-divisional magistrate, on receiving information, inspected the spot, found that the food grain, which was meant for distribution under the scheme-'kaam ke badle anaj' was found being sold to private persons, who were set to take the goods from the spot. said officer seized the food grain and lodged the first information report. after investigation, charge-sheet, was filed against five accused, including the two petitioners.6. learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent. it is further pleaded that from the papers on record, there appears no involvement of the petitioners in selling the food grain in private market.7. whether the petitioners are innocent or not, whether there is complicity on their part in commission of crime, are the questions of fact, which can be seen by the trial court after recording evidence of the witnesses. this court, in its jurisdiction under section 482 cr.p.c. is not inclined to give opinion on the factual.....

Judgment:


Prafulla C. Pant, J.

1. This is recall/restoration application MCRC No. 191 of 2010, moved on behalf of the petitioners for restoration of criminal misc. application (C-482) No. 287 of 2003, which was dismissed for non prosecution on 25.02.2010.

2. Heard and perused the affidavit, filed with the application.

3. In view of the principle of law laid down in Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. 2007 AIR SCW 1971, and considering the explanation, given in the affidavit, filed with the restoration application, the restoration application is allowed on the condition that the parties shall argue the petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), today itself. The order dated 25.02.2010, is recalled accordingly and heard learned Counsel for the parties on the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 2455 of 2003, State v. Dheer Singh and five Ors., relating to offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 120B I.P.C., pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee.

5. Brief facts of the case are that when respondent No. 3-Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate, on receiving information, inspected the spot, found that the food grain, which was meant for distribution under the scheme-'KAAM KE BADLE ANAJ' was found being sold to private persons, who were set to take the goods from the spot. Said officer seized the food grain and lodged the First Information Report. After investigation, charge-sheet, was filed against five accused, including the two petitioners.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent. It is further pleaded that from the papers on record, there appears no involvement of the petitioners in selling the food grain in private market.

7. Whether the petitioners are innocent or not, whether there is complicity on their part in commission of crime, are the questions of fact, which can be seen by the trial court after recording evidence of the witnesses. This Court, in its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not inclined to give opinion on the factual dispute, raised before this Court.

8. Having considered submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, pending before the trial court, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the court concerned, their bail applications shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay.




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