Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-18-1983
Reported in : 1984CriLJ545; 23(1983)DLT499; 1983RLR554
ORDER1. The Peoples' Patriotic Front New Delhi acting through its Executive Chairman, Smt. Nirmala Prasad (since then dead) filed a complaint under Sections 109, 120-B, 161, 165A, 409 and 420, IPC in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, on 3-8-1982 against the following persons : (1) Shri K. K. Birla, Chairman. Hindustan Times Ltd., (2) Shri Kamal Nath M.P., (3) Shri Harish Jain, Director. Hindustan Monark (P) Ltd., (4) Hindustan Monark (P) Ltd., (5) Directors of Hindustan Monark (P) Ltd., (6) M/s Kuo Oil, Hong Kong, (7) Directors of M/s Kuo Oil, Hong Kong, and (8) Shri P. C. Sethi, the then Union Minister for Petroleum and Chemicals. Smt. Nirmala Parsad was examined on oath on 3-9-1982 and the case was adjourned for remaining evidence. She died on 13-10-1982. On 27-11-1982 Shri Jaya Narain moved two applications, one that he be substituted in her place, and two the concerned file of the Department of Petroleum be summoned. The learned Magistrate was of the view that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-19-1983
Reported in : 1984(17)ELT12(Del)
H.L. Anand, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Cr. M(M) 495/83 and the connected petition Cr. M(M) 456/83, Pran Nath Dhawan and his wife, Mrs. Usha Dhawan, who are standing their trial on a complaint for an offence under section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, challenge a common order of the additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate holding that there was a prima facie case against both the petitioner for framing of a charge and the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing their revision petitions and upholding the order of the trial court. 2. The petitions were filed in the following circumstances. It is alleged that on the basis of secret information a party of Customs (Preventive) officials conducted an search of the residential premises of the couple at D-140, East of Kailash, New Delhi, on August 22, 1978, allegedly leading to the recovery of 16 cameras of Japanese make, valued at Rs. 40,000/-, 180 dozen nail cutters of U.S. make, valu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-19-1983
Reported in : 1984(1)Crimes472; 25(1984)DLT177; 1984(6)DRJ221; 1984RLR84
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed the order of the trial court by which the trial court refused to summon Respondents 1 and 2 in a complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and of the Additional Sessions Judge upholding the order of the trial Court.(2) The petition, which ex facie exposes a crude and clumsy attempt at character assassination of an educated young lady to defeat the claim for restitution of conjugal rights, has been made in circumstances which, to say the least show not only an utter disregard of any scruple on the part of an Advocate but also an unawareness on the part of the Courts below to their duty to give protection to a lady from an act of calumny. Respondent No. 2 is an Advocate of U.P. Respondent No. I is his,son and happens to be an Executive in a Nationalised Bank. Smt. Neelam Chaturvedi, sister of the petitioner who apparently come of a respectable family, was married to the son of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-06-1983
Reported in : 1984(1)Crimes470; 25(1984)DLT266; 1984(6)DRJ184; 1984RLR90
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The Petitioner Shiv Dutt Salwan is the Chairman of the Salwan Education Trust. The trust runs the Salwan Public School. The management of the said Trust decided to institute disciplinary school resulting in bad blood between the management and the delinquent employees. The employees lodged an Fir No. 598 on 31-12-1980 under Sections 147/ 148/149/307/506 Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and few others. That case being exclusively triable by the court of section of session has already been committed on 10-5-1983.(2) Another Fir No. 17/81 Ps Rajinder Nagar was lodged on 8-1-1981, this time against the petitioner alone that he threatened the wife of one of the witnesses in the earlier case that in case the statements given by the witnesses are not changed they would face dire consequences. This case is pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate. On 16-4-1983 and application was made by the petitioner under Section 323 Criminal Procedure Code . for committal of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-05-1983
Reported in : 1984(3)Crimes409; 25(1984)DLT343; 1984(6)DRJ231; 1984RLR171
M.L. Jain, J. (1) Upon a request by the Sho Moti Nagar for extern' ment of the petitioner, a notice was issued on 31-7-1982 to the petitioner Chander Bhan Soni of Karampura under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 that he was from 1972 to 1982 involved in several criminal cases in' eluding attempt to murder, robbery, theft, keeping and receiving stolen property, harbouring criminals, keeping of arms, etc. and his presence was hazardous to the community in the Union Territory of Delhi. His movement and acts were causing harm and danger to the persons and property. There were reasonable grounds for believing that he was engaged in the commission of offences punishable under Chapters Xvi and Xvii of the Penal Code. A list of 38 such cases was also incorporated. It was further alleged in the notice that witnesses did not come forward to depose against him in public for fear of their persons and property. He was, thereforee) directed to show cause why he should not be externed from th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-02-1983
Reported in : 1984CriLJ481; 25(1984)DLT52; 1984(6)DRJ160; 1984RLR111
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J.(1) Subhash Chand, petitioner, along with his brother Lakshman and mother Shakuntala were found guilty of having killed Sudha, wife of accused Lakshman by burning her. Shri S.M. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge tried the case and on 27th of May 1983 sentenced all the three accused to death. After handing down the death sentences, he submitted the record to this Court.for confirmation of the death sentences. While the said murder reference No. I of 1983 was subjudice and immediately. after the pronouncement of death sentences, respondent No. 1 is alleged to have given press interviews and an interview to Doordarshan where he is stated to have discussed the merits of this case. This he is stated to have done despite his awareness that the case was still subjudice and the sentences passed by him were not executable unless the same is confirmed by this Court. It is alleged that respondent No. 1 who had tried the case had no business to go to press and Doordarshan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-28-1983
Reported in : 25(1984)DLT83; 1984(6)DRJ203; 1984RLR95
M.L. Jain, J. (1) One Mukand Lal Khanna, an Afghan national along with some others was arrested on 3-9-1980 for violations of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) involving several millions of money. The Enforcement Officer produced him before the Magistrate for remand to judicial custody, while Mukund Lal Khanna applied for bail. The Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by his order of 23-9-1980 granted him bail on furnishing bail bonds in the amount of Rs. 1 lakh. Further conditions of bail were that his passport shall be retained by the department and that he shall not leave Delhi for next two months and will report to the Directorate of Enforcement, daily for 15 days.(2) Mukand Lal then made an application for permission to leave India for a period of three months. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by his order dated 3-4-1981 allowed him to go abroad on the following conditions, name (1) he will furnish a bank guarantee or deposit of Rs. 1 lakh in the cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-24-1983
Reported in : 25(1984)DLT134
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J. (1) Shri H. P. Bagchi, Additional Sessions Judge in his capacity as Special Judge, Delhi, tried the respondent Khem Chand, then serving as Sub-Inspector in the Police Department, under section 5(2) read with section 5(l)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 Indian Penal Code . By a judgment dated 30th October 1976, he dismissed the prosecution case and acquitted the accused of the charge. (2) Feeling aggrieved of this order, Delhi Administration has filed this acquittal appeal. The details about the prosecution case are given in Ext. Public Witness l/A, statement made by on: Pishori Lal Public Witness I before Shri Krishan Gopal Public Witness 9, Inspector Anti Corruption Branch. In this statement he said that since 9;h August 1974 he along with one Baljit Singh Khatri and his younger brother Sukhbir Singh Khatri reside in quarter No. F-123. Dda Flats, New Ranjit Nagar, Delhi, that this quarter, in fact, is allotted to one Dina Nath and he took it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-22-1983
Reported in : 1984(1)Crimes683; 25(1984)DLT219
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This order would dispose of Cr. M(M) 683/82 and Cr. M(M) 4/83, as both the petitions raise certain common questions of law and some of the respondents are also common and so are the nature of the allegations. All the police officers whose conduct is called in question were posted in the same police station. (2) These two petitions by two undertrials, Satpal (Cr. M(M) 683/82), and Shri Krishan (Cr. M(M) 4/83) were received by this Court from jail and contained allegations that the petitioners were subjected to illegal force while in police custody by certain officers of Police Station Farash Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi. While Satpal was wanted in connection with an offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the other petitioner, Shri Krishan, was wanted in connection with an offence u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code. (3) In the petition of Satpal, the respondents are Naresh Kumar, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Station House Officer, Sub-Inspector Hoshiar Singh, and Sub-I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-17-1983
Reported in : 1984CriLJ550; 1984(2)Crimes173; 1984(6)DRJ67; 1984RLR136
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The parties were married on 20-2-1980. Their marriage was dissolved by the Additional District Judge on 6-1-1982. The wife was granted under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act) a monthly maintenance of Rs. 200.00 per month with effect from 21-9-1981. inspire of this order, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, in a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (the code) by his order dated 1-7-1982 granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300.00 per month with effect from 20-11-1980. It was submitted before the learned Magistrate that he could not make the order of maintenance because a competent civil court has already adjudicated the matter and has granted maintenance to the wife. The learned Magistrate rejected this argument. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated 17-11-1982 agreed with the submission of the husband that after the permanent alimony has been fixed by the civil court under the Act, the pr...
Tag this Judgment!