Skip to content


Shri Manoram Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Om Prakash Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Director of C.B.C.i.D. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Criminal

Court

Uttaranchal High Court

Decided On

Judge

Appellant

Shri Manoram Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Om Prakash

Respondent

State of Uttaranchal and Director of C.B.C.i.D.

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 a first information report was lodged by chief cane officer of kisan co-operative sugar mill, nadehi, against three persons namely dharamveer, vinod kumar (resident of meerpur) and vinod kumar (resident of malakpur), in respect of offences punishable under sections 408, 420, 467, 468 i.p.c. it is complained in the first information report that large number of forged cane slips were found to have been fabricated in connection with payment of cane price to the farmers. after investigation, charge-sheet in question was filed not only against said three named accused, but some other accused including the present petitioner.4. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that civil judge, jr. div./judicial magistrate, has no jurisdiction to try a case relating to offence punishable under section 13 of prevention of corruption act, 1988. it is further pleaded that the petitioner had already been discharged in the departmental enquiry.5. having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after.....

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 charge-sheet dated 02.11.2000, relating to offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 120B I.P.C. and one punishable under Section 13(1)(c)(d) and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, 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 a First Information Report was lodged by Chief Cane Officer of Kisan Co-operative Sugar Mill, Nadehi, against three persons namely Dharamveer, Vinod Kumar (resident of Meerpur) and Vinod Kumar (resident of Malakpur), in respect of offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. It is complained in the First Information Report that large number of forged cane slips were found to have been fabricated in connection with payment of cane price to the farmers. After investigation, charge-sheet in question was filed not only against said three named accused, but some other accused including the present petitioner.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Civil Judge, Jr. Div./Judicial Magistrate, has no jurisdiction to try a case relating to offence punishable under Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is further pleaded that the petitioner had already been discharged in the departmental enquiry.

5. Having considered submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, and keeping in mind provision contained in Section 19(3)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and after going through the papers on record, this Court thinks it just and proper to dispose of this petition with the following direction:

Civil Judge, Jr. Div./Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, before whom the trial is pending, shall send the charge-sheet to the competent court, which can try the offence punishable under Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (i.e. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Nainital). It is further directed that if the petitioner 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 //