Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1973CriLJ512; ILR1972Delhi189
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) The short question for determination as contained in the referring order is as to whether the Controller functioning under the provisions of Act 59 of 1958 is a Court within the meaning of section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This judgment will, along with the reference dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 45 of 1971.(2) The petitioner has moved this court under section 561(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter called 'the Code') for quashing the proceedings pending against him before respondent No. 2. The allegations in the petition are that having obtained the permission of the competent authority the petitioner-landlord applied for the eviction of his tenant Hari Chand and obtained the eviction order dated the 4th of December, 1968, against which the appeal taken to the Rent Control Tribunal was dismissed on the 9th of February, 1970. He then took out execution proceedings. Hem Chand, respondent No. I to this petition along with hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008CriLJ1093; 2007(99)DRJ451
V.B. Gupta, J.1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of complaint case, filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi and consequential FIR No. 705/06 under various Sections of Indian Penal Code with P.S. Sarita Vihar.2. The brief facts of the case, as per the allegations made in the complaint/FIR are that the petitioner, in connivance with other co-accused persons had formed an illegal syndicate with some borrowers/brokers and got the loan sanctioned from respondent No. 3 on the basis of fabricated documents and on furnishing false material information and had illegally misappropriated the money of respondent No. 3 and have made wrongful gains for themselves and have caused wrongful losses to respondent No. 3.3. It has been further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner and other accused were required to verify and scrutinise the genuineness of borrowers and after complying with the formalities were required to recommend their ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1986(3)Crimes645; 31(1987)DLT13; 1986RLR619
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) This petition is directed against the order dated 6th December, 1985 passed by Shri P. K.Tain, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Criminal Revision No. 35 of 1984 which had in turn set aside the order dated 3rd February, 1984 passed by Shri R. S. Mahla, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, whereby the accused-petitioners had been discharged in case Fir No. 437182 of Police Station Karol Bagh, New Delhi, in respect of offences u/ss 448/442/323/120-B/34 Indian Penal Code .(2) The F.I.R. was lodged by respondent No. 1 Smt. Suvidya Yadav and according to the Smt. she along with her husband and children had been residing in Flat No. J-16, Mig, Dda Flats, Prasad Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, which had been taken by them from petitioner No. 2 Suresh Yadav in March 1980. She further alleged that they had paid a sum of Rs. 61,000 in foreign exchange and another sum of Rs. 36,000 to Suresh Yadav on account of the price in respect of this flat but on account of relationship no dee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1984(1)Crimes1040; 1984(7)DRJ63
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) This order shall dispose of the reference made on 28-7-1983 under Section 395(2) of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr. P.C.) by Sh. S.M. Aggarwal, Special Judge, Delhi. The question posed by this reference is whether it shall be just and proper to subject Ram Kanwar accused to the present fresh trial under Sees. 409/477-IPC and Section 5(l)(d) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in respect of 8 items of criminal breach of trust of money alleged to have been committed for a total sum of Rs. 10,048.13 P. during the year 1978 by employing the modus ope- randi of falsification of accounts in his capacity as cashier in the office of Director General of Civil Aviation, R.K. Pnram, New Delhi on the basis of a complaint ofShri R.N. Dass, Assistant Director (Admn.) made by him to the C.B.I, on 19-12-1979, registered with the Cbi and incorporated into R.C. No. 50/79 on 26-12-1979 and wherein the charge sheet was filed on 31-8-1981, in the face of his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1989Delhi200
Sant0sh Duggal, J. (1) M/S. Rinkoo Steels, a partner. ship firm, petitioner No. I, in this petition under section 482 Cr. P.C.. is an income-tax assessed, with petitioners No. 2 and 3 as partners. After the assessment lor the year 1980-81 had been finalised, a search under section 132 of the Income-tax, Act. 1961 (for short 'the Act') was conducted on 31st May, 1984 of their business promises as well as of other associates of theirs, and during the said search operations, allegedly a number of incriminating documents, books of account etc. were seized. An examination of the documents so seized is alleged to have revealed a large scale under-statement of income by petitioner No. 1. Since the assessment for the previous years had already been completed, prior to the date of search, proceedings under sections 147(a) read with section 148 of the Act were initiated, and the assessed called upon to submit fresh returns for the earlier assessment years, namely, 1980-81 and 1981-82. (2) The al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)166; [2005]123CompCas433(Delhi); 108(2003)DLT159
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present appeal calls for decisions on vital important questions, which have been raised by the parties hereto which are being dealt with and decided giving reasons for the the decisions.2. The respondent No. 2 company was incorporated on 14.2.1977 as a public company limited by shares. A show cause notice dated 16.3.2000 was issued by the Deputy Registrar of Companies under Section 211 of the Companies Act to the respondent No. 2 and its Managing Director consequent on inspection made under Section 209(A) of the Companies Act. The said show cause notice is a part of the documents which are filed. The relevant portion of the said show cause is extracted hereunder:'Whereas during the courses of Inspection it was observed that during the financial year 1994-95 to 1997-98 the schedule of Fixed Assets includes land worth Rs. 21 crore. The company has taken this land from NDMC on license and the land is not registered in the name of the Company. (The Company p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1973Delhi971
Jagjit Singh, J. (1) In connection, with import of certain quantities of Delta Hydro Carbosone in alleged contravention of certain provisions of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and the Sea Customs Act, 1878, Amar Nath Gupta and Sat Pal Jain were tried by a Magistrate. There was one complaint by an Assistant Collector of Customs against Amar Nath Gupta and Sat Pal Jain and another complaint by another Assistant Collector of Customs against Sat Pal Jain alone. They were, however, acquitted in both the cases on May 18. 1970. (2) Special leave to appeal against the orders of acquittal was applied for by the concerned Assistant Collectors of Customs, on whose complaints proceedings had been instituted against the accused. In the case against Amar Nath Gupta and Sat Pal Jain special leave to appeal was granted on September 15, 1970 and in the case against Sat Pal Jain on October 19, 1970. Separate appeals in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 9(1973)DLT368
M.R.A. Ansari, J.(1) The respondent Lalita Prasad filid a compaint against the petitioners herein in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, under sections 323 and 504 J. P. C. along with the complaint, he filed only one copy of the complaint. Summons were issued to the petitioners herein without, however, sending a copy of the complaint Along with the summons as required under section 204(1B) Cr P. C. The petitioners appeared before the learned Magistrate in response to the summons on 5th October, 1971. An objection was raised on behalf of the petitioners that the mandatory provisions of section 204(1B) Cr. P. C. had not been complied with by the complainant inasmuch as copies of the. complaint were not sent along with the summons and that, thereforee, the complaint should be dismissed. The complainant thereupon filed additional copies of the complaint in Court , on the same day, but the learned Magistrate dismisssd the complaint on the ground that such copies of the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1986(2)Crimes333; 1986(11)DRJ123; 1986RLR388
Malik Sharief Ud-din, J.(1) The Station House Officer, Police Station Farash Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi, opened a history sheet against the petitioner which in terms of the counter filed by the respondent Siri Ram Meena Sho Police Station Farash Bazar was approved by Dcp (East) on 28th February 1984 and thereafter hit name was entered in register No. 10 part Ii of the Surveillance Register. The petitioner has made a grievance that there was no justification for opening the history sheet or putting his name in register No 10 parl II. He has, thereforee, prayed that the history sheet be quashed and his name be removed from register No. 10 Part Ii and he has also sought a direction to the effect that the finger prints, foot prints and the photographs of the petitioner which are kept on the records of the police station Farash Bazar be destroyed.(2) The petitioner has given large number of details in respect of the fact as to how he is being kept under surveillance and is taken to the police s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 6(1970)DLT393
Prakash Naraia, J.(1) Ln proceedings under Section 483 Criminal Procedure Code, initiated by Smt. Sukhi against her husband Daulat Ram, the latter had been ordered to pay a monthly allowance as maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs. 80 per mernsem with effect from 6 6-1967. It appers that io spite of these orders Daulat Ram did nto pay the maintenance allowance to his wife. Accordingly on 31-10-1968 Smt. Sukhi moved an application under section 488(3) Criminal Procedure Code, complaining about her husband nto paying the maintenance allowance which till then had accumulated to Rs. 1300 and prayed that the amount of maintance be realized by issue of warrants of attachment or by passing of orders of imprisonment against Daulat Ram. This application came up before the Magistrate first Class, Theog who passed the following order:- 'PRESENTEDby the petitioner with counsel. Be entered. The warrant of attachment be issued and report to come up on 26-11-1968.'(2) On the date fixed, that is,...
Tag this Judgment!