Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008CriLJ3561; 2007(98)DRJ714
V.B. Gupta, J.1. Petitioner herein had earlier filed Crl.M.C.No.2952/2007 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 31st May, 2007 and 25th July, 2007 passed by Sh. Rakesh Tewari, Addl.Sessions Judge in Criminal Complaint case, whereby he had issued non-bailable warrants and process under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner.2. In that petition, it was also prayed that Addl.Sessions Judge be directed to bail out the petitioner in accordance with law and petitioner undertook that he will appear before the court of Addl.Sessions Judge, if directed and co-operate with the prosecution of the case on the next date of hearing, that is, 19th September, 2007.3. On that petition, this Court on 17th September, 2007passed the following order:Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the execution of process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. issued against the petitioner is stayed till 19th September, 2007 provided the petitioner deposit a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 166(2010)DLT362
V.K. Jain, J.1. These petitions involves a common questions of law as to (i) whether an order directing framing of charge or framing charge, in a case attracting the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is an interlocutory order and (ii) whether such an order can be challenged by way of (a) Revision Petition or (b) petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or (c) petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.2. Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act provides as under:(c) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings.3. In 'Dharambir Khattar and Ors. v. CBI' 2009 IV AD (Delhi) 657, four criminal revision petitions directed against the Order on Charge, passed by the learned Special Judge under Section 120B of the IPC, read with various provisions of Prevention of Corru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1967Delhi115
ORDER(1) This is an application under Art. 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution, read with Order 21, Rule 2, of the Supreme Court Rules, for grant of a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment, dated February 23, 1966, of a Division Bench consisting of Capoor and Grover Jj, in Criminal Revisions Nos. 355-D and 387-D of 1965. Today the learned counsel for the applicants has moved antoher application seeking same relief in the alternative under Article 133 of the Constitution.(2) There was a criminal case against respondent 2. H.K. Gupta alias Natwar Lal, for having cheated various persons, including respondent 1, Dr. Gurbax Singh, and having thus relieved them of considerable amounts of money. He was convicted in that case. After his conviction, respondent 1 applied for payment of Rs.1,17,000 out of the amount or amounts recovered from respondent 2. This application was under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was rejected by the trial Court. Ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1975Delhi182
V.D. Misra, J. (1) This is an appeal- against the acquittal of Harish Kumar of offences under sections 302 and 316, Indian Penal Code, for committing the murder of Sharda Devi who was carrying a quick unborn child.(2) The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that Sharda Devi deceased was married to Krishan Gopal. They were living with Madan Gopal, brother of Krishan Gopal, at house No. 2052, Gali Mahavir, Teliwara, Delhi. Krishan Gopal's grand-mother Kailash Wati was also living in the house and so were Shakuntia wife of Madan Gopal and their son Harish Kumar respondent. Madan Gopal and Krishan Gopal were not on good terms since they wanted their business to be partitioned. Shakuntia and Harish Kumar used to quarrel with Sharda Devi and they were not on speaking terms.(3) Sharda Devi had pregnancy of about 28 weeks in June, 1969. On June 3, 1969, at about I p.m. Dr. Jagan Nath Public Witness 4, who is a resident of the same locality, was approached by Madan Gopal who told him that Shar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 25(1984)DLT289
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is directed against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, upholding that of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, ordering the sealing of a premises u/s 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, exposes yet another instance of resort to the criminal process by intending buyers of immovable property to dispossess long standing occupation, by passing the rather dilatory civil remedies. (2) Premises bearing No. A-41, Sawan Park, Ashok Vihar, Delhi apparently belonged to and was in the occupation of the Prafull Kumar Sanyal. Sanyal died in May, 1966. Dwarka Singh Chanhan, the petitioner, had been living in a part of the property, either as a tenant under Sanyal or otherwise under some arrangement with him during his life time. Petitioner continued to be in occupation, either of a part or of the whole of the premises, since the death of Sanyal and there is controversy as to the extent of the area ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [2006]132CompCas402(Delhi); 119(2005)DLT214; [2005]61SCL121(Delhi)
O.P. Dwivedi, J. 1. The moot point for consideration in this writ petition is whether recourse to investigation in the affairs of company under Section 235 to 242 of the Company Act is the only way to launch prosecution in respect of alleged/suspected commission of cognizable offences under IPC by the office bearers of the company or the police can investigate such allegations of its own or under orders of Court, if approached by the aggrieved person/shareholder.2. Through this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC read with Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR bearing No. 99/2002, PS Connaught Place, New Delhi under Section 406/409/420/424/467/467/477A read with Section 120B IPC. The said FIR was registered in pursuance of order dated 19.2.2002 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi on a criminal complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioners who are Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Director, Chartered Accountants and Fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1251; 1995CriLJ163; 55(1994)DLT483; 1994(30)DRJ566; 1994RLR549
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the legality of the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate summoning the petitioner on the basis of complaint filed by the complainant under Sections 420 and 120B, of the Indian Penal Code. (2) Brief facts necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated hereinunder. Respondent No.1 filed a complaint under Sections 420 and 120B, against the petitioners in December, 1992. In the complaint, it is incorporated that the complainant had been in search of a match for his daughter Ms. Poonam. The complainant came across the matrimonial advertisement in Hindustan Times daily (English) dated 26th March, 1989. In pursuance of that advertisement, negotiations were carried on. Accused no.3, the father of the boy sent a reply. The advertisement showed that the boy was a divorcee. There was no mention of any child from the first marriage. The advertisement is reprod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 99(2002)DLT339; 2002(64)DRJ445
V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. The only question that requires consideration is as to whether when under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act basically the offence is triable by a Metropolitan Magistrate if he could commit the same to the Court of Sessions or not.2. The above said question arises as a result of the following facts. A complaint with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was filed by local health authority against the petitioner. It was on theassertions that on21st August, 1996food inspector purchased a sample of mustard oil at M/s Bansi Oil Mills, Khanna Market, New Delhi. The petitioner was stated to be present conducting the business. A sample of 375 gms of mustard oil was taken and divided into three parts by the food inspector.One counterpart of the sample was sent to the public analyst and report was received that the sample does not conform to the standard laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 152(2008)DLT100; 2008(106)DRJ77
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. By this judgment it is proposed to resolve the divergence of opinion that has arisen on account of the views expressed by two learned judges of this Court in their respective judgments in Crl.M. (Main) No. 2153/1996 O.P. Chirania and Anr. v. The Director of Lotteris, Haryana and Ramrichhpal Gupta v. DCM Shri Ram Consolidated Limited reported in (1995) DLT 284. This Bench for the sake of brevity has limited the scope of its opinion to the question/issue referred to it.2. The brief facts which have led to present reference are as follows. One Shri Gauri Shankar Mittal and the two petitioners, namely, Shri O.P. Chirania and Shri Binod Kumar Chirania, were the partners of M/s. Deep Mayank and Associates, the respondent No. 3, having its branch offices in New Delhi and Patna and its Head Office at Calcutta. The firm was dealing in lottery business. In 1992, the State of Haryana was running seven weekly lotteries, namely, Jai Durga, Mahadev, Hari Om, Jai Vishnu, Shri Gan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 146(2008)DLT588; 2008(100)DRJ475; 2008(3)SLJ512(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the Order dated 1st August 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CAT'), Principal Bench, New Delhi, CP 135/2003 in O.A. No. 1197/2001.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:(a) The petitioner herein was engaged as Badly/Daily Paid Worker in Delhi Milk Scheme with effect from 1st January 1999 onwards. The petitioner had completed 240 days in a period of 12 months. The said period of 240 days was calculated by counting the days of actual duty rendered by him plus the intervening weekly offs and other holidays.(b) Even after completion of 240 days in accordance with the provisions of the Para 4 (iii) of the Certified Standing Orders, the petitioner was not transferred to regular establishment of Delhi Milk Scheme.(c) Aggrieved by the failure of the respondent to transfer the services of the petitioner to the regular establishment of Mates ...
Tag this Judgment!