Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2005)1GLR474
C.K. Buch, J. 1. The petitioners before this Court are accused Nos. 9 and 10 in the Criminal complaint filed by the respondent No.2 Bank, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with 114 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioners pray that invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the proceedings initiated by respondent Bank through its officer Shri Bharatkumar Ambalal Panchal, be quashed as the same is bad and unsustainable on the grounds mentioned in paragraph 5 of the memo of petition.2. I have considered the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Gupta for the petitioners, Mr. A.D. Oza, Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent State and Mr. B.B. Naik for the complainant Bank.3. It is submitted by Mr. Gupta that they are wrongly dragged into a sensitive litigation, though they were not party to any of the transactions referred to in the complaint filed before the Police. Initially the complaint was filed in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1998)IILLJ587Ker
A.C. Lakshmanan, J.1. Though a Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported in 1997 (1) KLT 788 expressed their displeasure and sorrow by the unseemly controversy between the Advocate General (hereinafter referred to as 'the A.G.' and the Director General of Prosecution hereinafter referred to as 'the DGP') and disposed of the said case with a fond hope that the unhappy episode will be forgotten and not allowed to recur to sully the image of the two offices, the controversy, which appears to have been simmering, has come to the surface again.2. The root cause for the current controversy is the office direction issued by the Director General of Prosecution under Ext.P-1 dated February 5, 1998 informing the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association and the High Court Advocates Clerks' Association that copies of all criminal cases may be directly forwarded to his office with memo (after the cases are numbered in the registry section of the High Court and before sent to the Bench ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1966Guj166; 1966CriLJ749; (1966)GLR25
1. This matter arises out of an application by the petitioner to this Court praying for a leave to file an appeal under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order of acquittal passed by Unjudicial Magistrate, First Class at Broach acquitting opponent No. 1, original accused of an offence under Section 400. I. P. C. in Criminal Case No. 1100 of 1959. That application for leave was dismissed by this Court on July 17, 1963 whereupon the petitioner prayed for a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. There was a division of opinion between the two learned Judges constituting the Bench which heard the application under Article 134(1)(c) and hence the matter has been placed for disposal under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent.2. The petitioner in this application is the original complainant who had filed a complaint against opponent No. 1 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Br...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1988(15)ECC192; 1988(36)ELT432(P& H)
I.S. Tiwana, J.1. These eight petitions (Cr. Misc. Nos. 1271-M, 1274-M, 1277-M& 1280-M of 1985 and 1835-M, 1837-M, 1839-M & 1841 -M of 1987) are being disposed of together on account of the similarity of facts and the contentions raised therein. However, to deal with the various points raised by Mr. H.L learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners effectively, these deserve to be divided into two groups - the first four forming one set and the remaining four, another, firstly the facts of the first set.2. As a result of the four complaints filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi alleging the violation of the various conditions of the four import licences granted in favour of the petitioners, they were summoned by the Special Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala, vide his order dated January 7, 1984 to face trial under Section 6 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947, read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The details of these complaints w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
W.P.(Crl.) No.409 of 2020, etc. REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.409 OF2020STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ...Petitioner versus JAIL SUPERINTENDENT (ROPAR) & Ors. ...Respondent(s) WITH [Transfer Petition (Criminal) NO.104-114 of 2021]. JUDGMENT R. Subhash Reddy, J.(Writ Petition (Crl.) No.409/2020) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) by the State of Uttar Pradesh, seeking Writ of Mandamus, seeking appropriate directions, directing the respondent-State of Punjab and the Learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Mohali, 1 W.P.(Crl.) No.409 of 2020, etc. State of Punjab, to transfer the criminal proceedings and trial in the Case Crime No.05 of 2019, titled as State of Punjab v. Mukhtar Ansari, pending before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Mohali, State of Punjab, to the Court of Special Judge (MP/MLA), Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh and with a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1971CriLJ1322; 1971MhLJ172
Padhye, J.1. This petition is filed for quashing and setting aside the criminal complaints Nos. 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986, all of 1969 and/or criminal proceedings pending before the 23rd Court of the Presidency Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay by an appropriate writ, order or direction either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution and/or Under Section 561-A and/or Under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The criminal proceedings before the Presidency Magistrate at Bombay which are sought to be quashed arise out of five complaints lodged by the Opponent No. 1 against the present petitioners for contravention of the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952. The petitioner No. 1 is a registered partnership firm carrying on its business under the name of Messrs. Siku Industries, Industrial Estate, Kamptee Road, Nagpur and the petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 are the partners of the petitioner No. 1. The Opponent No. 1 is an Inspector in the Office of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK O.J.C. No.13765 OF 1996 Abdul Rashid . Petitioner -VersusState of Odisha & others . For the petitioner For the opp.parties Opp.Parties None. Mr. R.K.Mohapatra, Government Advocate for O.P.Nos. 1 to 4. BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.K.GOEL THE HONBLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.RATH Date of hearing : 11.12.2013 Date of Judgment : 11.12.2013 JUDGMENT AND ORDER ( A.K.Goel, CJ.) 1. This petition seeks a direction for an independent enquiry into the death of a child labour beaten to death.2. The case of the petitioner is that on 14.11.1996, one Rajunu Khan was working in a Bidi Company in Seikh Bazar was beaten to death by the owner and died on the spot. The matter was published in the daily newspaper The Samaj. on 18.11.1996. The parents of the deceased are poor and did No.take remedies. The Magistrate conducted the enquiry by getting the deadbody from the grave and found injuries on the deadbody. The deadbody was buried by the owner of the Bidi -2Com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Criminal Misc. No.2189 of 2014 in 1 Criminal Appeal No.S- 3958-SB of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.2189 of 2014 in Criminal Appeal No.S- 3958-SB of 2013 Date of Decision: March 06, 2014 Dr.O.P.Mahajan .......Applicant-appellant (Presently confined in Central Jail, Amritsar) Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present: Present Mr.PS Ahluwalia, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. Mr.KS Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.The applicant-appellant stands convicted vide judgment dated 2.11.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar for offences punishable under Section 18 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 (for short '1994 Act') and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and consequently, in terms of order of sentence dated 8.11.2013, has been sentenced as under: i) To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.420 OF2012SURESH & ANR. ..... APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ..... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.1. This appeal has been preferred against conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 302 read with Sections 34, 364-A, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.2. Case of the prosecution is that on 18th December, 2000, the deceased Devender Chopra and his son deceased Abhishek Chopra had left their factory for their house in D.L.F., Gurgaon but did not reach their house. At about 9.41 P.M., PW-12 Pooja Chopra, daughter of Devender Chopra gave a call to her father to find out as to why he was late. She learnt that her father and brother had been kidnapped and ransom of rupees fifty lacs was demanded for their release. She contacted her father's business partner informing him that Devender Chopra and Abhishek Chopra were kidnapped and the kidnappers had demanded a ransom a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.420 OF2012SURESH & ANR. ..... APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ..... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.1. This appeal has been preferred against conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 302 read with Sections 34, 364-A, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.2. Case of the prosecution is that on 18th December, 2000, the deceased Devender Chopra and his son deceased Abhishek Chopra had left their factory for their house in D.L.F., Gurgaon but did not reach their house. At about 9.41 P.M., PW-12 Pooja Chopra, daughter of Devender Chopra gave a call to her father to find out as to why he was late. She learnt that her father and brother had been kidnapped and ransom of rupees fifty lacs was demanded for their release. She contacted her father's business partner informing him that Devender Chopra and Abhishek Chopra were kidnapped and the kidnappers had demanded a ransom a...
Tag this Judgment!