an Neeraj Pariyani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: This is repeat (third) application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail relating to FIR No.407/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali District Jabalpur (M.P.) for the offences under Sections 328, 109 of the IPC and Sections 18(c), 27 (b)(i) of the Aushadhi Aur Prasadhan Samagri Adhiniyam, Section 8, 21, 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and also under Sections 5/13 of the M.P. Drug Control Act, 1949. Full Article
an Chandraprakash Yadav @ Chandu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1. Heard on I.A.No.20559/2024, an application under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to assist the Public Prosecutor. 2. On due consideration and the reasons contained in the application, the same is allowed. Shri Vijay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate and his associates are permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor at the time of hearing of this case. 3. The applicant has filed this second repeat application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 01.03.2024 by Police Station Morar, District Gwalior, M.P. relating to Crime No.66/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120B of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. First application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.07.2024 passed in M.Cr.C.No.27396/2024. Full Article
an Narendra Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Case diary is available. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail. 3. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.61/2024 registered at Police Station Dharkundi,, District Satna for offence under Sections 406, 06, 417, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC and Section 13(1)(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 R/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (Amendment) Act, 2018. 4. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that applicant has filed a Writ Petition No.23452/2024 for transfer of investigation to another Investigating Agency and in that case by order dated 22.08.2024, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicant. Full Article
an Bisan Lal vs Rajau on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The appeal was heard on admission and reserved on 25/09/2024. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28/10/2021 passed by Fifth Additional District Judge, Mandla in Civil Appeal No.43/2016 [Bisan Lal Vs. Rajau and another] arising out of judgment and decree dated 29/06/2016 passed by learned Civil Judge Class-II, Nainpur in Civil Suit No.24-A/2015. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant at the time of arguments on admission it was argued that both the Courts have failed to appreciate that Tahsildar Nainpur under the provision of Section 89 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code has passed the order in favour of the appellant. In First Appeal, certain documents under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC were produced but they were not taken on record. One registered sale deed was also produced. Full Article
an Mohanish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: With the consent of the parties, heard finally. The applicant has filed the present M.Cr.C. under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of F.I.R. No.55/2020 registered at Police Station - Sanyogitaganj, District - Indore for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 of the Indian Penal Code & Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and final report dated 21.04.2020 and all the consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. Full Article
an Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Pichhore Thr. vs Mukesh Kumar Bhatt on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: APPEARANCE: Shri S.P. Jain - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Subodh Pradhan - Advocate for the respondent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- {Passed on 8th the Day of November, 2024} 1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioner being crestfallen by the award dated 24- 03-2018 (pronounced on 02-05-2018) passed by the Labour Court No.2, Gwalior in case No.02/A/I.D. Act/2015 (Reference) whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages. 2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioners and respondent were having workman employer relationship and the respondent was appointed as daily rated Nakedar on Collector rate in the establishment of petitioner No.1 Samiti. The dates and events having material bearing over the case and necessary for disposal of the case are as under: Full Article
an Sanjeev Kumar Thiwari vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the second accused in Crime No. 751/2014 of the Perumbavoor Police Station, which is registered against two accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 202, and 212 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was originally arrested on 03.03.2014 and he was enlarged on bail on 14.03.2014. However, during the committal stage, the petitioner had absconded. Thereafter, the petitioner was re-arrested on 08.08.2024, and remanded to judicial custody. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 20.02.2014, at around 2:30 hours, the first accused committed the murder of one Mukesh. Thereafter, the first accused caused the disappearance of evidence by 2024:KER:83235 throwing his clothes into the river. The second accused, who is also a native of Bihar like the first accused, who had the knowledge that the first accused had committed the above crime, intentionally omitted to give the information regarding the commission of the offences to the police, and he harboured the first accused. Thus, the second accused has committed the offences under Sections 202 and 212 of the IPC. Full Article
an Najeeb Rahman vs Additional Commissioner Of Customs on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: [WP(C) Nos.26883/2024, 38022/2024, 38213/2024, 38235/2024 & 38427/2024] The issue raised in these writ petitions are covered against the petitioners by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India and others; (2022) 14 SCC 152. It is clear from a reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court that after the amendment of Section 129 E of Customs Act, 1962 with effect from 06-08-2014 it is a provision beneficial to the persons who propose to file an appeal (like the petitioners herein) and only requires deposit of a portion of the demand. On a consideration of the provision is substituted with effect from 06-08-2024 and on considering the question as to whether such provision will cause undue hardship, it was held as follows; Full Article
an M/S.Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co.(P) vs P.R.Balakrishnan on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1 .R.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN RAO P PARTNER, M/S.WOODLANDS JEWELLERS, WOODLAND JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM,, KOCHI-16. 2 /S.WOODLANDS JEWELLERS, M KOCHI-16. 3 TATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 1 & R2 BY ADVS. R SRI.JOHN BRITTO SRI.C.A.RAJEEV R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA C. THIS CRIMINAL APPEALHAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.10.2024, THE COURT ON 08.11.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 2 2024:KER:82742 "CR" J U D G M E N T The complainant in CC No.238 of 2002 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, filed this appeal challenging acquittal of the accused, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as 'the NI Act'), as per judgment dated 31.05.2007. 2. The complainant, M/s.Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Company,isaPrivateLimitedcompanyhavingitsregistered office at Chennai and a branch office at MG Road, Ernakulam. The complainant is represented by its power of attorney holder, who is the Assistant Manager of that company.Heisempoweredtoinstitutethecomplaintandto give evidence. The 2nd accused is M/s.Woodlands Jewellers and the1staccusedisitspartner.Rs.2,13,000/-wasdueto the complainant, from the accused, towards future instalments of kuri transactions, whichthe2ndaccusedhad subscribed with the complainant-company. Towards dischargeofthatdebt,the1staccusedissuedExt.P2cheque dated 14.12.2001, assuring that, it would be encashed on CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 3 2024:KER:82742 presentation before the Bank. The complainant presented that cheque for collection but it was dishonoured for the reason, 'A/c transferred to suit file. No Balance.', as per Ext.P3 memo. Complainant sent Ext.P5 registered lawyer notice to the accused, and inspiteofreceiptofnotice,they did not repay that amount, though a reply was sent with untenable contentions. Hence the complaint. 3. After taking cognizance and on appearance of the accused before the trial court, particulars of offence were read over and explained, to which, they pleaded not guilty andclaimedtobetried.Thereupon,PW1wasexaminedand Exts.P1toP10andP10(a)weremarkedfromthesideofthe complainant. On closure of complainant's evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence and according to them, they subscribed chitty conducted by the complainant, which was terminated on 12.11.1998. They paid the entire amount due, and thereafter their passbook was closed. Ext.P2 cheque was CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 4 2024:KER:82742 given by the accused, as a blank one, only as a security, when he bid the chitty. After closing the chitty,theaccused demanded back the blank cheque given as security, but it was not returned, saying that it was kept intheheadoffice at Madras. No defence evidence was adduced. 4.Onanalysingthefactsandevidence,andonhearing the rival contentions from either side, the trial court acquitted the accused, finding that the complaint was not properly instituted, as PW1-Assistant Manager was not properly authorised to filethecomplaintortogiveevidence on behalf of the company. Moreover, the complainant failed to prove that, Ext.P2 cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused, the complainant has preferred this appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for theappellantandlearned counsel for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that, since the complainant is a Private Limited company, which is an incorporeal body, only an employee or CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 5 2024:KER:82742 representativeofthecompanycanpreferthecomplaint.The company becomes a de jure complainant and its employee or other representative representing the company in the criminalproceedingsbecomesthedefactocomplainant.Ina complaint, with regard to dishonour of a cheque issued in favour of a company, for the purpose of Section 142 of the NI Act, the company will be the complainant, and for the purpose of Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, its employee,whorepresentsthecompany,willbethedefacto complainant. A company can be represented by an employee, or even by a non-employee authorised and empowered, to represent the company by a resolution or a power of attorney. 7. According to the appellant, Ext.P8 extract of the resolution empowered PW1-Sri.A.T.K.Ajayan, who was the Assistant Manager ofthecompany,tofilethecomplaintand to give evidence. Ext.P8 is the extract from the minutes,of the proceedings of the Board of Directors meeting, held on 14.09.2000, at its corporate office at Chennai, which CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 6 2024:KER:82742 authorisedtheAssistantManagerSri.A.T.K.Ajayan,todothe following acts: '( 1) Toinstitute,commence,prosecute,carryonor defend any suit or legal proceeding, (2)Tosignandverifyallplaints,writtenstatements and other pleadings, applications, affidavits, petitions or documents and produce them before any Court, (3) To appoint, engage and instruct any solicitor, Advocate or Advocates to act and plead and other wise conduct the case on behalf of the Company and to sign any Vakalathnama or other authority in this regard, (4) To give evidence on behalf of the Company in any Court of law, and (5) To do all other lawful acts,deedsandthingsin connectionwithfilingofanysuitandconducting anylegalproceedingsinanycourtoflawandto withdraw the case on behalf of the Company.' CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 7 2024:KER:82742 8. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 would contendthat,Ext.P8extractoftheminutesisnotadmissible in evidence and the minutes has to beprovedbyproducing theoriginal.HewouldrelyonadecisionoftheHighCourtof Judicature at Bombay in Ashish C. Shah v. M/s. Sheth DevelopersPvt.Ltd.&Othersreportedin[CDJ2011BHC 339:2011 KHC 6506], to say that, Section 194 of the Companies Act provides that, the minutes of meetings kept in accordance with the provisions of Section 193, shall be evidence of the proceedings recorded therein. No provision intheCompaniesActwasbroughttothenoticeofthatcourt which provides that, certifiedcopyorextractoftheminutes would be admissible in evidence, without proof of the original. Section 65(f) of the Evidence Act provides that, secondary evidence may be given, of the existence, conditionandcontentsofthedocument,whentheoriginalis the document, of which a certified copy is permitted bythe Evidence Act or by any other law in force in India, to be given in evidence. He would rely on another decisionofthe CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 8 2024:KER:82742 Delhi High Court in Escorts Ltd. v.SaiAutosandOthers [1991 Company Cases Volume 72 Page 483] to say that, copy of resolution was not enough and the original of the minutes book, containing the resolution reliedon,hastobe brought to the court. 9. Section 119 of the Companies Act, 2013 which correspondstoSection196oftheCompaniesAct,1956says that,thebookscontainingtheminutesoftheproceedingsof any generalmeetingofacompanyorofaresolutionpassed by postal ballot shall be kept at the registered office of the company,anditshallbeopenforinspectionbyanymember during business hours and if any member make a request, for a copy of the minutes,itshallbefurnishedwithinseven days, onpaymentofprescribedfees.So,Section119ofthe Companies Act provides for copy of the minutes, and moreover, learned counsel for the appellant would saythat, copy of every resolution shall be sent to the Registrar for recording the same within 30 days of passing the same. Moreover, as per Section 54 of the Companies Act, 1956, a CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 9 2024:KER:82742 document which requires authentication by a company may be signed by adirector,themanager,thesecretaryorother authorisedofficerofthecompany,andneednotbeunderits common seal. So, accordingtotheappellant,Ext.P8extract oftheminutes,whichcontainstheresolutionauthorisingthe Assistant Manager to file criminal or civil cases or to give evidenceetc.,signedbythedirectorofSreeGokulamChit& Finance Co.(P)Ltd.,wassufficientauthorityforPW1,tofile the complaint and to give evidence, on behalf of the company. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents would point outthat,Ext.P8wasnotproducedalongwiththecomplaint, and it was produced subsequently after questioning the accusedunderSection313ofCr.P.C.Relyingonthedecision M. M. T. C. Ltd. v. Medchil Chemicals And Pharma (P) Ltd. [2002 KHC 241], learned counsel for the appellant contended that, even if there was no authority initially, still thecompanycanrectifythatdefect,atanystage.Inpara12 of that judgment, we read thus: CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 10 2024:KER:82742 "It has been held that if a complaint is madeinthe name of an incorporeal person (like a company or corporation) it is necessary that a natural person representssuchjuristicpersoninthecourt.Itisheld that the court looks upon the natural person to be the complainant for all practical purposes. It is held that when the complainant is a body corporate it is the de jure complainant, and it must necessarily associate a human being as defactocomplainantto represent the former in court proceedings. It has further been held thatnoMagistrateshallinsistthat theparticularperson,whosestatementwastakenon oath at the first instance, alone can continue to represent the company till the end of the proceedings. It has been held that there may be occasions when different persons can represent the company. It has been held that it is open to the de jure complainant companytoseekpermissionofthe court for sending any other person to represent the company in the court. Thus, even presuming, that initially there was no authority, still the company can, at any stage, rectify that defect. At a subsequent stage the company can send a person who is competent to represent the company. The complaintscouldthusnothavebeenquashedonthis ground." 11. In the decision, Bhupesh Rathod v. Dayashankar Prasad Chaurasia and Another[2 021 (6) CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 11 2024:KER:82742 KHC 368], Hon'ble Apex Court held that, even if there was no authority initially, the company can at any stage rectify that defect by sending a competent person. In that case, copy of the board resolution was filed along with the complaint. An affidavit was brought on record by the company, affirming the factum of authorisation in favour of the Managing Director. Hon'ble Apex Court accepted the copy of board resolution, to find thattheManagingDirector was authorised to file complaint in the Court and to attend all such affairs which maybeneededintheprocessoflegal actions. Paragraphs 23 and 24 of that judgment read thus: "2 3. It is also relevant to note that a copy of the Board Resolutionwasfiledalongwiththecomplaint.Anaffidavit had been brought on record in the Trial Court by the Company, affirming to the factum of authorisation in favouroftheManagingDirector.AManageroraManaging Directorordinarilybytheverynomenclaturecanbetaken tobethepersonin-chargeoftheaffairsCompanyforits day - to - daymanagementandwithintheactivitywould certainlybecallingtheactofapproachingtheCourteither under civil law or criminal law for setting the trial in motion (Credential Finance Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 1998(3)MahL J805).Itwouldbetootechnicalaviewto take to defeat the complaint merely because the bodyof CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 12 2024:KER:82742 the complaint does not elaborate upon the authorisation. The artificial person being the Company had to act through a person / official, which logically would include the Chairman or ManagingDirector.Onlytheexistenceof authorisation could be verified. 24.Whileweturntotheauthorisationinthepresentcase, itwasacopyand,thus,doesnothavetobesignedbythe BoardMembers,asthatwouldformapartoftheminutes of the Board meeting and not a true copy of the authorisation. We also feel that it has been wrongly concludedthattheManagingDirectorwasnotauthorised. If we peruse the authorisation in the form of a certified copyoftheResolution,itstatesthatlegalactionhastobe taken against the respondent for dishonour of cheques issued by him to discharge his liabilitiestotheCompany. To this effect, Mr. Bhupesh Rathod / Sashikant Ganekar were authorised to appoint advocates, issue notices through advocate, file complaint, verifications on oath, appointConstituentattorneytofilecomplaintintheCourt and attend all such affairs which may be needed in the process of legal actions. What more could be said?" 12. Obviously Hon'bleApexCourtacceptedcopyofthe resolutiontofindthefactumofauthorisationinfavourofthe Managing Director. 13.Inthecaseonhand,PW1-AssistantManagerofthe complainant-companyfiledthecomplaintandgaveevidence CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 13 2024:KER:82742 on behalf of the company. Ext.P8 extract of the minutes shows that, the board of directors authorised him to do so. Thefactthatonlyextractoftheminutesbookwasproduced, without producing the original, or that Ext.P8 wasproduced at a belated stage, etc., will not take away that right from him. So, he could have filed the complaint and given evidence also on behalf of the company, on the strength of the resolution by the boardofdirectors,anextractofwhich was produced as Ext.P8. 14.Learnedcounselfortherespondentswouldcontend that, Ext.P9 power of attorney was not executed or authenticated by theNotaryPublicandso,itcouldnothave been accepted to draw power for PW1, tofilethecomplaint or to give evidence. According to him, the two ingredients contained in Section 85 of the Evidence Act viz. execution before the Notary Public and the authentication by the Notary Public are very essential. The words 'executed before', and 'authenticated by', are the two conditionstobe satisfied in order to attract the presumption under Section CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 14 2024:KER:82742 85 of the Evidence Act.HewouldrelyonthedecisionBank of India v. M/s. Allibhoy Mohammed and Others reported in [AIR 2008 BOMBAY 81], to support his argument.Inparagraph 18 of that judgment, we read thus: "18. Let me turn to the Legal Provisions; namely, Section 85 of the Evidence Act which lays down that the Court shall presume due execution and authentication of power of attorney when executed before, and authenticated by a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Counsel or it's Vice Counsel or representative of theCentralGovernment, etc. This presumption is available in favour of the originalPowerofAttorneyholderprovidedmandateof Section 85 is duly followed." 15. In the case on hand, though the original power of attorneyisproducedandmarkedasExt.P9,itdoesnotshow that it was executed by the complainant in presence of the Notary Public, and there is no authentication by the Notary Public, that it was executed before her. So, there is some forceintheargumentputforwardbylearnedcounselforthe respondents, that Ext.P9 power of attorney cannot be accepted,forwantofproperexecutionandauthenticationas CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 15 2024:KER:82742 envisaged under Section 85 of the Evidence Act. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that,evenifthepowerofattorneyisignored,thenalso,the complaint is filed by an officer of the company and he was authorised as per board resolution dated 14.09.2000, the extract of which was marked as Ext.P8. So, this Court is of the view that, though Ext.P9 power of attorney was not liable to be accepted, being the officer of the company, authorised by board resolution dated 14.09.2000, PW1 was empowered to file the complaint and to give evidence. 17.Learnedcounselfortheappellantwouldsaythat,if the accused was disputing the authority of the complainant tofilethecomplaintortogiveevidence,itwasopenforhim to dispute andestablishthesameduringthecourseoftrial. Hon'ble Apex Court in TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. (M/s.) v. M/s. SMS Asia Pvt. Ltd. and Another [2022 (2) KHC 157:2022 (1) KLT OnLine 1043 (SC)] made that position clear, by holding that, when thecomplainant/payee is a company, an authorized employee can represent the CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 16 2024:KER:82742 company. Such averment and prima facie material is sufficient for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance and to issue process. If at all there is any serious dispute with regard to the person prosecuting the complaint not being authorized, or if it is to bedemonstratedthatapersonwho filed the complaint has noknowledgeofthetransactionand assuchthatpersoncouldnothaveinstitutedandprosecuted the complaint, it would be open for the accused to dispute thepositionandestablishthesameduringthecourseofthe trial. 18. Though the respondents were disputing the authority of PW1, vide Ext.P8 extract of the resolution as wellasExt.P9powerofattorney,theydidnottakeanysteps to establish that position, during trial.So,thefindingofthe trialcourt,thatPW1wasnotauthorizedtofilethecomplaint and to give evidence on the basis of Ext.P8 extract of the resolution, is liable to be set aside. 19.Comingtothefactsofthecase,learnedcounselfor theappellantwouldsubmitthat,therespondentssubscribed CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 17 2024:KER:82742 seven kuries of Rs.5,00,000/- each, with the appellant company, andtheyauctionedthatkurion14.02.1997.They defaulted payment of future instalments, and towards discharge of that liability, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P2 cheque dated 14.12.2001 for an amount of Rs.2,13,000/-. When that cheque was presented before Bank, it was returned dishonoured for the reason 'A/c transferred to suit file. No balance.' The respondents are not disputing the signatureinExt.P2chequeortheissuanceofthatchequeto the appellant. All statutory formalities to bring home an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act was complied with. Moreover, the presumptions available under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act will come to the aid of the appellant to show that, Ext.P2 cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt. So, according totheappellant,learnedtrialcourtwentwrongin acquitting the accused. 20. The respondents would contend that, when they auctioned the kuri with the appellant, as a security for the CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 18 2024:KER:82742 balance instalments, Ext.P2 cheque was given as a blank signed cheque, and even after they paid the future instalments fully, and closed the kuri, the blank cheque entrustedwiththeappellantwasnotreturned. Onlytosee, whether they could extract some more money from the respondents, they filed a false complaint, misusing that blank cheque. 21.RelyingonthedecisionoftheHon'bleApexCourtin Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar[(2019) 4 SCC 197], learned counsel for the appellant would argue that, even a blank cheque leaf, voluntary signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumptionunderSection139oftheNIAct,intheabsence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt. Paragraphs 33 to 36 of that judgment read thus: "33. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payeeremainsliableunlessheadducesevidencetorebut CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 19 2024:KER:82742 the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted. 34.Ifasignedblankchequeisvoluntarilypresentedtoa payee,towardssomepayment,thepayeemayfillupthe amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accusedtoprovethatthechequewasnotindischargeof a debt or liability by adducing evidence. 35.Itisnotthecaseoftherespondent-accusedthathe either signed the cheque or parted with it under any threat or coercion. Nor isitthecaseoftherespondent- accused thattheunfilledsignedchequehadbeenstolen. The existence of a fiduciary relationship between the payeeofachequeanditsdrawer,wouldnotdisentitlethe payee to the benefit of the presumption under Section 139oftheNegotiableInstrumentsAct,intheabsenceof evidence of exercise of undue influence or coercion.The second question is also answered in the negative. 36. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the NegotiableInstrumentsAct,intheabsenceofany cogent evidence to showthatthechequewasnotissued in discharge of a debt." CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 20 2024:KER:82742 22. The respondents are not disputing issuance of Ext.P2chequetotheappellant,thoughaccordingtothem,it wasissuedasablanksignedcheque.Theyarenotdisputing the fact that they auctioned the kuri which they subscribed with the appellant and future instalments were to be paid, evenafterauctioningthekuri.Obviously,Ext.P2chequewas issuednotunderanythreatorcoercion,andevenaccording totherespondents,itwasissuedasasecurityforthefuture instalmentstobepaidinthekuri,whichtheyhadauctioned. In Moideen v. Johny [2006 KHC 1055], this Court held that, even if a blank cheque was issued as a security, the person in possession of the blank cheque, can enter the amount of the liability and present it to the bank. When a blank cheque is issued by one to another, it gives an authority on the person, to whom itisissued,tofillitupat the appropriate stage, with the necessaryentitiesregarding the liability, and to present it to the bank. In the event of dishonour of that cheque, the accused cannot be absolved from his liability. CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 21 2024:KER:82742 23.Anothercontentiontakenupbylearnedcounselfor the respondents is that, the appellant did not produce the account books of the chitty to show that Rs.2,13,000/-was due from them. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, production of account books etc. may be relevant in a civil court, but as far as a criminalcaseunder Section138oftheNIActisconcerned,thereispresumption in favour of the holder of the cheque, and so the burden is upon the respondentstorebutthatpresumption.Shewould rely on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex CourtinChandelD. K.v.M/s.WockhardtLtd.andAnother[2020KHC6204] which says that production of the account books/cash book may be relevant in a civil court; but may not be so, in the criminal case filed under Section 138 of NI Act, because of the presumption raised in favour of the holder of the cheque. 24. The respondents are not disputing the fact that they had subscribed kuries with the appellant company. Ext.D1 passbook shows that the kuri commenced on 12.11.1996, and it was terminated on 12.11.1998. In the CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 22 2024:KER:82742 first page of that passbook, a 'PAID' seal is found with the date14.02.1997.Accordingtotheappellant,itwasthedate onwhichthatkuriwasauctionedbytherespondents. Inthe 10th page of that passbook,thereisanendorsementinred ink, as 'c losed 14.12.1998'. So according to the respondents, the endorsement 'c losed 14.12.1998' andthe 'PAID' seal on the first pageofthepassbook,willshowthat he had paid the entire amount due under that kuri and so, no amount was due, so as to issue Ext.P2 cheque. 25. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that,ifthekuriwasclosedon14.12.1998,thepassbookwill show the seal 'c losed', just like the 'PAID' seal in the first page. Since the kuri was auctioned by the respondents, definitely there would have been future instalments, to be paid monthly, till the termination of that kuri. When the respondents are alleging discharge of the entire kuri instalments duetotheappellant,itistheirburden,toprove itwithcogentevidence.Theycouldhaveverywellcalledfor the Registers pertaining to the kuri to show that the entire CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 23 2024:KER:82742 amount has been paid by them. Learned counsel for the appellant would say that, since Ext.D1 passbook was in the custody of the respondents, they themselves might have made the red ink entry 'c losed 14.12.1998'. Since Ext.D1 passbook was with the respondents, the manipulation as alleged by the appellant cannot be ruled out. Learned trial court seems to have been carried away by the 'PAID' seal seen on the first page of Ext.D1 passbook to find that, the entire dues of the kuri was paid off by the respondents. Obviously, that 'PAID' seal was regarding payment by the company, when the kuri was auctioned by the respondents. 26.Learnedcounselfortherespondentswouldcontend that, on receipt of Ext.P5 lawyer notice, they sent Ext.D2 reply notice disowning theliabilityanddisputingissuanceof the cheque. But the appellant produced Ext.P10 notice sent by the respondents on receipt of Ext.P5 notice. In Ext.P10 notice, it was stated that the respondents were facing financial difficulties and they were making every effort to raise funds to settle the account. But, learned counsel for CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 24 2024:KER:82742 the respondents would say that, they never sent Ext.P10 replynoticetotheappellant.ButExt.P10(a)postalcoverwill show that, it was sent by the respondents to Adv.Sri.K.S.Babu, who sent Ext.P5 notice. Ext.D2 notice as well as Ext.P10noticeareonthesamedayi.e.10.01.2002. But Ext.D2 was addressed to the appellant directly. The postalreceiptoracknowledgementcardofExt.D2noticewas not produced by the respondents. Since Ext.P5 notice was sent by an advocate, normally the reply also should have been given to that advocate. Ext.P10 notice along with Ext.P10(a) cover seem to be more reliable. On going through Ext.P10 notice, it could be seen that, the respondents were admitting their liability to certain extent, towards the balance amount due on prized chits. 27.Advertingtotheaforesaidfactsandcircumstances, this Court is of the view that, the trial court went wrong in acquitting the accused. So,theimpugnedjudgmentisliable to be set aside. There is evidence to show that Ext.P2 cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 25 2024:KER:82742 enforceable debt, and that cheque was dishonoured for the reason'A/ctransferredtosuitfile.Nobalance.'Theappellant had complied with all the statutory formalities in order to attract an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.ThecomplainantwasauthorizedasperExt.P8extractof the resolution, to file the complaint and to give evidence. The respondents failed to rebut the presumptions available in favour of the appellant, under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act. So, respondents 1 and 2 are found guiltyunder Section 138 of the NI Act. 28. As per Section 141 of the NI Act, if the person committing an offence under Section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Section 141(2) of the NI Act reads thus: CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 26 2024:KER:82742 "141. Offences by companies. -- (1) xxx xxx xxx (2)Notwithstandinganythingcontainedinsub-section(1), where any offence under thisAct,hasbeencommittedby a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation: For the purposes, of this section,-- (a) "company"meansanybodycorporateandincludesa firm or other association of individuals; and (b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm." 29. In the case on hand, the 2nd respondent is a partnership firm and the 1st res Full Article
an Sabah Rahman vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: This application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of the applicant/accused in S.C.No.561 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Session, Manjeri. He has been found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354 A (2) read with Section 354 A (1)(i), 363 of IPC, and Section 8 read with Section 7 of the PoCSO Act. He has been sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment for the aforesaid offences. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The maximum period of imprisonment he will have to undergo is 4 years. Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024 in & 2. The application is opposed by the learned public prosecutor. Full Article
an Bhagavan Ram D Patel vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Dated this the 08th day of November, 2024 The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the 8 th accused in Crime No.1360/2024 of the Cherthala Police Station, Alappuzha, which is registered against the accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420, 468, 471, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 09.09.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, had during the period from September 2023 to 13.05.2024 induced the defacto complainant to make investments in their companies named 'INVESCO CAPITAL' and 'GOLDMANS SACHS'. Accordingly the defacto 2024:KER:83459 complainant invested Rs.7,65,00,000/- by transferring the amount from his and his wife's joint account believing that he would receive Rs.39,72,85,929/-. However, the accused did not pay any profit or return the capital. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. Full Article
an Noushad Khan vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Dated this the 08th day of November, 2024 The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the 1st accused in Crime No.796/2024 of the Neyyattinkara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, which is registered against the accused persons for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 08.09.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that, on 11.06.2024, at 11:45 hours, the accused 1 to 3 had pledged spurious gold ornaments, weighing 16.150 grams, with the defacto complainant and received Rs.69,000/-. Thus, the accused have committed the above offence. Full Article
an Sanesh vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the sole accused in Crime No. 882/2024 of the Thrissur West Police Station, Thrissur, which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 342, 294(b), 506, 323, 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 15.08.2024. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that; one day between 10 and 15th of May 2023, the accused wrongfully confined the survivor in a class room at Thrissur Kerala Varma College, and after causing hurt to her, he undressed and committed rape on her. The accused also uttered obscene words and intimidated the survivor, saying that if she disclosed the incident to anyone, he would murder her. Thus, the accused has 2024:KER:83438 committed the above offences. Full Article
an Santhosh @ Kalyani Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1900/2024 & Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1905/2024 These applications under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of the applicants/accused persons in S.C.No.1313 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Session, Kollam. The accused persons11 in number have been found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 326, 307 read with Section 149 IPC. They have been sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment for the aforesaid offences. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Therefore the maximum period of imprisonment they will have to undergo is five years. Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024 in & Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024 in & Crl. Appeal Nos.1900 & 1905 of 2024 Full Article
an Sano M. Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS', for short) by the first accused in Crime No. 690/2024 of the Chingavanam Police Station, Kottayam, which is registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 376, 376(3), 376(2)(n), 354 A, 354 B and 506(1) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, and Sections 3(a), 4(1), 6, 5(1), 11(ii) and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short, 'the POCSO Act'), 2012. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 04.07.2024. Full Article
an K.P. Credit And Traders Pvt Ltd vs Anurag Rungta on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The Court:- This appeal is arising out of an order rejecting an application for judgment upon admission filed under Order 13A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This order is not appealable in terms of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has fairly conceded that the appeal is not maintainable. Hence the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. The original certified copy shall be returned to the appellant by the Department concerned after retaining a photocopy of the same in order to enable the appellant to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. (SOUMEN SEN, J.) (APURBA SINHA RAY, J.) mg Full Article
an Umc Technologies P Ltd vs Assistant Director Of Postal Services ... on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The Court: As a last chance, the time to file affidavit-in-opposition to the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is extended upto 30th November, 2024. Affidavit-in-reply, if any, be filed within 8th December, 2024. Let this matter appear in the list on 11th December, 2024. The time mentioned is peremptory. (SHAMPA SARKAR, J.) B.Pal Full Article
an Aaryan Projects Private Limited vs Klowin Infrastructure Private Limited on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The Court: We have heard learned counsel for the parties. On 25th April, 2023, the appeal was admitted and all further proceedings in the suit including the hearing of the application under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act pending before the learned Trial Court was initially stayed for eight weeks and thereafter the said interim order was extended from time to time. 2 We feel that the appeal is required to be heard and we do not find any reason to vacate the interim order at this stage. The interim order passed on 25th April, 2023 is confirmed. The applications stand disposed of. The appeal shall be listed on 25th November, 2024. Full Article
an Food Corporation Of India And Ors vs Kothari Medical Centre on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The Court :- We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. This appeal has been filed by the respondent in WPO/1664/2023 challenging the interim order dated 14.12.2023. By the said interim order the positive direction has been issued to the appellant to disburse the dues to the writ petitioner in terms of the bills for the period other than pertaining to the financial year 2018-19 and also the appellant has been restrained till the disposal of the writ petition from refusing to accept the bills which has been filed by the writ petitioner for the subsequent period including the current years. We find that relief granted to the writ petitioner is in fact the relief which has been prayed for by the writ petitioner in prayers (f) and (g) of the writ petition. The learned Single Bench was also conscious of the fact that to decide the matter finally affidavits have to be called for and, accordingly, issued appropriate direction. Full Article
an Srei Equipment Finance Limited vs Marina Piling Company Pvt Ltd And Anr on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: It appears that a Sole Arbitrator had been appointed in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement dated December 5, 2018. An application under section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") had been preferred before the learned Arbitrator. Two Officers were appointed as Receivers in respect of the subject asset. The Receivers were directed to take physical possession of the said asset being an equipment being XR 220D, bearing engine no.22293605 along with its accessories, as mentioned in the agreement. Pleadings disclose that the Receivers were not able to take physical possession of the asset in question as they were resisted by the respondents and the local police authorities also did not cooperate. Full Article
an Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M/S. Vivekananda Mercantile Pvt. Ltd on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: learned advocate on record of the appellant is directed to serve notice of appeal on the respondent in the meantime. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) S. Kumar Full Article
an Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The Court : This is an appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging an order dated January 11, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in I.T.A No.763/Kol/2022, for the assessment order 2013-14. We have heard Mr. Aryak Dutt, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Soumitra Chowdhury, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. The appeal was filed beyond time and an application for condonation of delay was filed which was heard and the delay was condoned. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee would submit that the assessee has been advised to avail the provisions of the direct tax Vivad Se Viswas Scheme (VSVS) dated 15 th October, 2023. However, one issue may crop up if the assessee files an application under VSVS by citing that the duty fixed for eligible cases as has been mentioned in paragraph 3(Sl.1)(ii). Identical issue arose for consideration before this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata vs. Asish Kumar Ghosh, WPA 18282 of 2021 and by judgment dated 1st April, 2022 this Court had considered the very same issue and found that the assessee would be eligible to file a declaration under the provisions of the VSVS and a direction was also issued to process such application. The judgment rendered in Asish Kumar Ghosh will fully support the case of the assessee and therefore the assessee is entitled to file an application under the VSVS. Accordingly, the assessee is directed to file an application and the department shall process the application in accordance with law. Full Article
an Shib Shankar Rungta Prop Of S S Rungta And ... vs Jai Jute And Industries Ltd on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Date: November 8, 2024. Appearance : Ms. Swapna Choubey, Adv. Mr. Udit Agarwal, Adv. ... for the plaintiff Mr. D.N. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nilay Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Sailendra Jain, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Jain, Adv. Full Article
an Meher Foundations And Civil Engineers ... vs Spml Infra Limited (Subhas Projects Amd ... on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The Court :The affidavit of service is taken on record. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). The petitioner was engaged by the respondent to execute some piling work. The petitioner contends that the work could not be completed as NTPC had stopped the petitioner from carrying out the same on account of certain disputes between NTPC and the respondent. It is submitted that non- payments of the amounts due and other disputes between the petitioner and the respondent could not be resolved as a proceeding was before an arbitrator for resolution of a dispute between NTPC and the respondent. The petitioner claims to have also approached NTPC and were allegedly informed that the claim of the petitioner would be liquidated by the respondent as the money awarded by the arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings between the respondent and NTPC, had been paid to the respondents.The petitioner had invoked the arbitration clause and the respondent replied to the notice, thereby denying the claim of the petitioner. The respondent suggested the name of a learned Retired Judge to act as the sole arbitrator, in response to the notice invoking arbitration. In reply to such letter, the petitioner suggested the names of three learned Retired Judges. Full Article
an P C Chanda & Company Private Limited vs Bharat Chemicals & Paints on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Bivas Pattanayak, J. :- 1. The instant execution case has been filed by the plaintiff-decree holder against the defendant-judgment debtor for execution of a decree dated 24th March, 2021 for a sum of Rs.12,54,607.68/-. 2. In its affidavit in support of tabular statement the decree holder contends that the judgement-debtor holds immovable property namely an office at Golpark Co-operative Housing Society, Flat no. 13/B2, 4th Floor, 49C, Govindapur Road, Lake Gardens (near Jodhpur Market), Kolkata- 2 700068 and operates bank account at UCO Bank, Park Circus Branch, Kolkata-700014. 3. The judgement debtor through its partner filed its affidavit of assets who contends that he possesses the above mentioned flat and the bank account. Full Article
an Dalli Rani Etc vs M/S Tara Devi Yashpal Singh Distt Una (H ... on 6 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: By way of this order, I intend to dispose off aforesaid-captioned appeals. These appeals involve similar question of law in the background of identical set of facts. 1 of 9 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145543 other connected cases 2. For brevity, the facts are being culled out from from FAO No.1112 of 1988. 3. Instant appeal is directed against judgment dated 26th of August, 2022 passed by Sub Judge, 1st Class, Phagwara exercising powers as ESI Court under ESI Act, 1948 whereby the petition filed under Section 75-78 of the ESI Act, 1948 by the respondent has been allowed. 4. Recovery certificate under Section 45-A was issued and attachment proceedings were initiated against the respondent through Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Phagwara for recovery of Rs.6690-95 paise. Respondent challenged the demand before ESI Court. It was claimed that the demand raised by the ESI Corporation was based on adhoc assessment without any survey. The demand has been raised w.r.t. 132 KV Sub Station, Phagwara. The same does not fall within the purview of ESI Act as the strength of the staff is only three in number. The staff employed for maintenance like Mali, Sweeper at the Sub Station are on the roles of XEN D/S and not on the roles of KV Sub Station. It was thus claimed that the respondent was not liable to pay any amount towards ESI contribution. Full Article
an Surender And Anr vs Divisional Canal Officer, Rohtak And ... on 6 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Present revision petition is directed against order dated 3rd of May, 2024 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak whereby application filed by the defendants under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, stands dismissed. 2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the petitioners as the defendants and respondent No.2 as the plaintiff. 1 of 8 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144672 3. Respondent/plaintiff filed suit seeking declaration to the effect that order passed by Divisional Canal Officer, Rohtak Water Services Division, Rohtak, dated 7th of March, 2017 sanctioning water course AB be declared illegal, null, and void. Further prayer was for decree in form of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from digging the water course. Full Article
an Dhoop Singh vs State Of Haryana on 6 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: CRM-42163-2024 For the reasons stated in the application coupled with the no objection pleaded by the State counsel, the application is allowed and copy of the judgment of acquittal Annexure A-7 dated 04.09.2024 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jind is taken on record. CRA-S-2545-2019 1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 11.04.2019, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jind whereby the appellant who stood surety for accused Balwinder @ Binder, is directed to pay penalty of Rs.1 lac with further direction that the same be recovered as arrears of land revenue by the Collector concerned. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Balwinder @ Binder who was accused in a criminal case having FIR No.23 dated 21.02.2016 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 283, 186, 341, 332, 353, 307, 395, 397, 406, 427, 436 and 120- B IPC and under Section 25 of Arms Act and under Sections 3 and 4 of PDPP Act, Police Station Pillukhera (Uchana) and he was granted bail and appellant stood as his surety in sum of Rs.1 lac. Subsequently, Balwinder @ Binder jumped bail and absconded. Resultantly, notice under Section 446 1 of 3 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144618 CRA-S-2545-2019 [2] Cr.P.C was served upon the appellant and he was imposed penalty of Rs.1 lac vide impugned order dated 11.04.2019. Full Article
an Joban Singh @ Jobanbir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1. Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, has been invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 85, dated 12.09.2023, under Sections 379-B(2), 341, 336, 411, 201, 34 of IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Shekhwan, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab. 2. Facts Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:- "Statement of Kawaljit Singh S/o Kuldeep Singh R/o House No. 177 Loharka Road, Gali No.9 NRI Colony, Amritsar aged 49 years. M. No. 98884-30028. Stated that I am resident of aforementioned address and is doing work of Fashion Designer at Amritsar. My in-laws are residing in village Talwandi Jangla. My father in law name is Sucha 1 of 6 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145797 Singh son of Mohan Singh. Today I along with my wife Sarabjit Kaur aged 40 years went to meet my in-law's family at village Talwandi Jangla on Bullet Motorcycle No. PB-02-DV-4128 colour black. After meeting them at around 07:00 PM I along with my wife left for our house and at around 07:20 PM when we reach Qullian on Qadian to Batala road then one motorcycle came from back on which three boys were sitting. Two were clean shaved and one was in turban. They park their motorcycle in front of my motorcycle and stopped us. The boys told us that we should give them motorcycle and when I refused then one Hindu clean shaved person took our pistol and fired three shots in air to make us afraid. They took away my bullet motorcycle colour back No. PB02-DV-4128. I informed police by calling at 100 number and you have come at the spot." Full Article
an Manmohan Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 7 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1. Instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of the FIR No.159, dated 05.07.2017, under Sections 353, 186, 341, 332, 323, 148, 149 of IPC (challan presented under sections 353, 186, 341, 332, 323, 148, 149, 201 IPC), registered at Police Station Patran, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 16.07.2024 (Annexure P-3). Further prayer has been made for staying all the consequential proceedings arising out of the present FIR during the pendency of the present petition. 1 of 6 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145330 Full Article
an Vijay Singh Jakhar vs Haryana Employees State Insurance ... on 6 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of criminal complaint No.31-II dated 18.01.2016 titled as Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Vijay Singh Jakhar and another (Annexure P-1) filed under Section 85 (a) of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 (in short, 'Act of 1948') and summoning order dated 18.01.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar and all the consequential proceedings arising thereof. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Employees State Insurance Corporation (in short 'ESIC') filed criminal complaint Annexure P-1 against the petitioner and M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar under Section 85 (a) of the Act of 1948 wherein it was alleged that petitioner is 1 of 7 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145123 CRM-M-1189-2017 [2] proprietor and principal employer of M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar in terms of Sections 2(17) and 86-A of the Act 1948. The accused failed to pay any contribution as required under Sections 39, 40 (1), 43 and 44 of the Act of 1948 read with Regulation 26 of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulation 1950, for the contribution period ending 04/2011 to 03/2013 and thus, the accused have committed offence punishable under Section 85 (a) of the Act of 1948. The necessary sanction for prosecution required under Section 86 (1) of the Act of 1948 is taken from the competent authority before filing the complaint Annexure P-1, which was filed through S.S.O, ESIC, Hisar. On presentation of the complaint, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar took cognizance and as the complaint was filed by the complainant in his capacity as a public servant, recording of preliminary evidence was dispensed with and petitioner and M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar were summoned under Section 85(a) of the Act of 1948 vide order Annexure P-2 dated 18.01.2016. Full Article
an Amandeep Singh Alias Boban vs State Of Punjab on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1. Relief Sought This petition has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in Case FIR No. 69 Dated 02.03.2023 registered under Sections 302, 364, 201, 406, 420, 120-B IPC at Police Station City Kharar District SAS Nagar (Mohali). 2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version in the FIR reads as under :- 'Statement of Gagan Kumar Son of Paramjit Singh Resident of House No.-2213/55 C New Vijay Nagar Street No-3 Tajpur Road, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana aged about 26 years, stated that I am a resident of the aforesaid address and working in a private job at Ludhiana. My brother-in-law Rajinder Singh son of Hardev Singh Village Post Office Mahauli Khurd Police Station Sandour District Malerkotla (aged about 33-34 years) who used to work for car sales and exchange at Kharar who lived on rent at Sri Krishna Dairy Sante Majra Colony Kharar near Swaraj Nagar that on dated 18-2- 2023 my brother-in-law came back from Gurgaon Haryana. With whom I spoke on the phone, who told me that I will come to 1 of 8 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145880 Ludhiana on Monday. Full Article
an Yadwinder Singh @ Luddan vs State Of Punjab on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1. Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 121, dated 08.08.2023, under Sections 307, 379-B(2), 411, 473 of IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana Rural. 2. Facts Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:- "Statement of Rahul Rathore son of Satpal Rathore son of Kabrika Singh resident of Back side of Rythem Place, Mandi Mullanpur PS Dakha, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, aged about 23 years, Mobile no: 82831-59149, it is stated that I am resident of above mentioned 1 of 8 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145836 address and I started learning the work of denting-painting after passing my 10th class in year 2015-16. Now I have one workshop situated near Mini Holland, Mandi Mullanpur under the name and style of B.R Motors. Yesterday 07.08.2023 at about 4:40 PM I took my car make Swift bearing registration number PB-22H-9291 whose denting-painting work was pending to Car Bazar, Ayali Chowk, Ludhiana from my workshop and at about 5:20 PM I took my car from said Car Bazaar and was going to Mullanpur and on my way I took some smoking material (Cigarettes-Bidi etc.) from one Khokha Shop) situated on the left side of PTCE Badowal from Railway Crossing Badowal and I along with my friend namely Sagar @ Bhalu resident of Mandi Mullanpur in said car make Swift were smoking, meanwhile two young persons dressed as Nihang Sikhs came near our car and they were standing there and they got stopped us and asked that where are you going, on which I told them that we are going to Mullanpur. They told me that our motorcycle is out of fuel and kindly took us along with you. On which I took both the said Nihang Sikhs along in my car and we left from there. Meanwhile when we reached at main GT Road and turned towards Mullanpur City then one of the Nihang Sikh called to some person and told that our motorcycle is out of fuel, kindly refill the fuel and stand near PTCE Badowal and get me communicate with that Khokha (shop) owner and took motorcycle from there. Thereafter when my car reached in front of the Baba Zahir Bali Badhowal then the Nihang Sikh who was sitting on the back seat took out his pistol and pointed it towards the temple of my friends namely Sagar @ Bhalu. I stopped my vehicle, on which my friend namely Sagar @ Bhalu ran away towards backside after opening the door of the car and both the Nihang Sikhs present in the car told that get out from the car otherwise we will shoot you. I protested for the same then the Nihang Sikh sitting on the back seat of the car opened a fire shot of his pistol towards me and it hit on the bicep of my left arm and pierced through it and the other Nihang Sikh pulled me out from the car by opening the door and took me out from the car and both the said Nihang Sikh snatched my car make swift bearing registration number PB-22H-9291 and ran 2 of 8 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145836 away towards Mullanpur Mandi Side. There was flow of blood from my arm, due to which several passers-by got together at the spot and I took lift from some motorcycle rider and reached at my workshop at Mullanpur Dhaka, Where one Birbal took me to Civil Hospital Sudhar in his car make Creta. They referred me further to Civil Hospital Ludhiana and from there I was got admitted to Bhiwan Hospital, Kaccha Malk road, Jagraon by my father namely Satpal Rathore after arranging a vehicle. Here my treatment is going on. Kindly take required legal action against both the said unknown Nihang Sikhs. I have got recorded my statement to you, heard it as correct. SD/- Rahul verified by SD/- Satpal Rathore attested SD/ - Dharminder Singh ASI PS Dhaka dated 08.08.2023" Full Article
an Vijay Singh Jakhar vs Haryana Employees State Insurance ... on 6 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of criminal complaint No.32-II dated 18.01.2016 titled as Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Vijay Singh Jakhar and another (Annexure P-1) filed under Section 85 (e) of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 (in short, 'Act of 1948') and summoning order dated 18.01.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar and all the consequential proceedings arising thereof. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Employees State Insurance Corporation (in short 'ESIC') filed criminal complaint Annexure P-1 against the petitioner and M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar under Section 1 of 7 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145104 CRM-M-614-2017 [2] 85 (e) of the Act of 1948 wherein it was alleged that petitioner is proprietor and principal employer of M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar in terms of Sections 2(17) and 86-A of the Act 1948. The accused have failed to submit the return of contribution as required under Sections 39, 40 (1), 43 and 44 of the Act of 1948 read with Regulation 26 of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulation 1950, for the contribution period ending 04/2011 to 03/2013 and thus, the accused have committed offence punishable under Section 85 (e) of the Act of 1948. The necessary sanction for prosecution required under Section 86 (1) of the Act of 1948 is taken from the competent authority before filing the complaint Annexure P-1 which was filed through S.S.O, ESIC, Hisar. On presentation of the complaint, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar took cognizance and as the complaint was filed by the complainant in his capacity as a public servant, recording of preliminary evidence was dispensed with and petitioner and M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar were summoned under Section 85(e) of the Act of 1948 vide order Annexure P-2 dated 18.01.2016. Full Article
an Birbal Alias Lilu vs State Of Haryana on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1. Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been invoked for second time seeking the concession of regular bail for the petitioner in FIR no.0608 dated 10.12.2023 under Sections 22(C), 29, 61 and 85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala (Annexure P-1), during the pendency of trial. 2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version in the FIR read as under :- 'Respected Sir, To the Station House Officer, Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala. Today on 10.12.2023, ASI Matlub Hussain No. 207/AMB HSNCB UNIT AMBALA, ASI SANDEEP KUMAR 75/A, EASI SURENDRA SINGH NO. Full Article
an Manoj Alias Manoj Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail. 2. Per paragraph 16 of the reply dated 14-10-2024, the accused has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station 1. 331 1994 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi 2. 497 1994 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi 3. 715 1998 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi 4. 920 2004 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi Full Article
an Rakesh vs State Of Haryana on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: CRM-43453-2024 Application is allowed, as prayed for. Exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-3 is granted and the same are taken on record with just exceptions. CRM-M-54564-2024 1. Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, has been invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 168, dated 25.04.2024, under Sections 21(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29 of NDPS added later on), registered at Police Station Meham, District Rohtak. 1 of 9 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145894 2. Facts Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:- Full Article
an Daljit Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 6 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') seeking quashing of FIR No. 258 dated 20.11.2013 20.11.2013, registered under Sections 307, 115, 120-B B of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Division No. 7, Jalandhar, chargesheet/final report under Section 173 of the Code, the order dated 13.01.2015, whereby the petitioners were ddeclared eclared as proclaimed offenders as well as all the subsequent proceedings having emanated ed therefrom. 2. Adumbrated facts as emanating from the record are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement recorded by respondent No. 2/complainant 2/complainant Karanveer Singh on 20.11.2013 alleging that on the same day, he along with his partner Maninder Singh was present in his office situated at Urban Estate, Phase-2, Phase 2, Jalandhar, when at about 03:30 PM, 1 of 15 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144868 CRM-M-12293 12293-2015 (O&M) -2- two youths having muffled faces entered inside his office, whereas two persons remained outside the gate and stairs of his offic office. The youths, who had barged into his office, were armed with pistols and when the complainant complain asked them about the reason for their coming there,, they opened fire with their pistols upon him with intent to kill him. The complainant, however, managed to save ave himself by by throwing a chair towards them and the bullets so fired hit on the side of his cabin after piercing through the chair and then hit the roof. On raising alarm, alarm, all of them fled away from the spot. The complainant disclosed that he identified one one of them as Parshotam Kumar, resident of Bijnor. He also alleged that said Parshotam Kumar was having enmity with his brother Vikramjit Singh, who was residing in Norway and was going to get permanent residency. Harminder Harminder Singh, father of the complainant, complainant recorded his statement under Section 161 of the Code disclosing that he was proceeding towards the office of his son, when two car cars were noticed while going from the side of the office. One of those cars cars,, which was Indica make, was driven by accused Parshotam Parshotam Kumar and three persons were sitting therein. He also disclosed that in the second car, which was Tata 207 make, Pawan Kumar @ Pawan and Kulwinder Singh @ Kaka were sitting and he already knew them. The statements of Vikramjit Singh, who was also present pre in India at that time, and other material witnesses were also recorded. Full Article
an Ram Mehar vs State Of Haryana on 6 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1. The instant appeal is directed against the verdict drawn on 15.01.2020, upon Sessions Case No.63, of 2017, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, wherethrough, in respect of a charge drawn for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, he recorded a verdict of conviction against the convict-appellant. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order of 16.01.2020, the learned trial Judge concerned imposed, upon, the convict- appellant both sentence(s) of imprisonment as well as sentence(s) of fine, but in the hereinafter extracted manner. "5. The convict has been proved to have committed murder of a young boy without any provocation on his part. The convict is, thus, sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years." Full Article
an Harpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner herein prays for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari for setting aside the impugned order dated 14.10.2024, whereby the election(s) for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Pona, Cluster No.4, Block Jagraon, District Ludhiana, has been cancelled just few hours before the start of polling, thus inter alia on the ground, that the same is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner has been condemned unheard, besides is beyond jurisdiction. The petitioner further seeks the making of a mandamus, thus directing the official respondents to immediately hold the elections for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Pona, Cluster No.4, Block Jagraon, District 1 of 21 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146136-DB Ludhiana, between the candidates (i.e. the petitioner and respondent No.8) whose nomination papers were validly accepted and to whom election symbols were allotted by the Returning Officer. Full Article
an Mahendra Pandit vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Date : 11-11-2024 In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):- 1. For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders and direction/directions to the Respondents authorities in the nature of Mandamus/Prohibition for not declaring the land as the forest land of the petitioner of Mauza- Targachha of Khata No. Khesra No. 1 of Thana No. 517 of Area 27 acres 61 decimal of District- Banka which belongs to the petitioner upon which, this petitioner planted the trees and cultivated the land twice a year. Full Article
an Ashok Paswan vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: as contained in Memo No. 274 passed by the learned District Magistrate, Nawada to the extent, whereby the claim of the petitioner for his regularization has been turned down. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been working as daily wager against Class-IV Patna High Court CWJC No.2171 of 2019 dt.11-11-2024 post since long. Despite his continuous services for a long period, when his claim has not been considered for regularization, he moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15428 of 2010. The learned Court having considered the grievance of the petitioner has disposed off the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent no. 2, the District Magistrate, Nawada, to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order. Pursuant to the aforenoted direction, the petitioner filed a detailed representation. However, the claim of the petitioner has turned down by Annexure-5 to the writ petition, which is put to challenge. Full Article
an Pramod Singh vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Date : 11-11-2024 In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):- For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions directing the respondent concerned to pay the compensation of the land/house of the petitioner which has been acquired for construction of Babura-Doriganj approach road and bridge as per the rate prescribed in the year 2014 as well as the rate prescribed for commercial buildings. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 12 decimal land of petitioner bearing Khata No. 2623, Khesra No. 1916 and 1918 was acquired by the State Government vide Land Acquisition Case No. 01/12-13 for construction of Babura- Patna High Court CWJC No.4465 of 2018 dt.11-11-2024 Doriganj approach road and bridge. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent authorities have paid compensation to the petitioner in the year 2017 as per the rate fixed in the year 2012 though in the year 2014 new rate has been fixed by the competent authority and hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation as per rate fixed in the year 2014 as well as the rate prescribed for commercial buildings. It is submitted that in spite of several requests made by petitioner, the concerned respondent authority has not paid the enhanced compensation. Full Article
an Vijay Pandey vs The State Of Bihar Through The Principal ... on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: which was notified by the Bihar Government vide letter No. 14/DLA-Margdarshal- LA Act (Bharat Sarkar)-238/2013-1342 dated 14.12.2015 in the light of Section 24 (i) (a) of the Provision of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for payment of compensation to the petitioners in the light of Market value of the land on 01.01.2014. (iii) For any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioners are entitled under the law in the light of fact and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. Full Article
an Ramesh Paswan And Ors vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Date : 11-11-2024 In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):- That, this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ or writs setting aside the order dated 11.08.2017 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, of 2015-16 (wrongly mentioned as 2005) by which he has allowed the appeal preferred by respondent 2nd set against the order dated 10.04.2015 passed by the Anchal Adhikari, Jehanabad in Misc. Case No. 08 of 2015-16 by which he has allowed the claim of the petitioners for collection of rent after entering their name in Jamabandi to the land in question and/or to grant any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case. Full Article
an Bhup Narayan Pandey vs The Bihar State Road Transport ... on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: has held that the writ petition is not maintainable in Patna High Court CWJC No.5157 of 2020 dt.11-11-2024 view of the judgment rendered by this Court in Sidheshwar Prasad (supra) as also the decision of the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajeshwar Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Others [L.P.A. No. 822 of 2015] and accordingly it was disposed off giving liberty to the petitioner of the said writ petition to file appropriate petition under the Act, 1947. The copy of the said order has also been brought on record as Annexure-E to the supplementary counter affidavit. 6. Dr. Anand, learned counsel for the Corporation also countered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of merit(s). Full Article
an Ganga Mandal And Ors vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: , made by the Circle Officer, Baheri, affected families, including the petitioners have though been paid some amount of compensation, however, the same is not in consonance with the guidelines issues by the Principal Patna High Court CWJC No.3081 of 2018 dt.12-11-2024 Secretary, Disaster Management Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, contained in letter dated 26.05.2015, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow:- 6. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel Patna High Court CWJC No.3081 of 2018 dt.12-11-2024 appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to get compensation @ of Rs. 95,100/- each, in view of the aforesaid guidelines issued by the Disaster Management Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and in light of the report submitted by the Revenue Karmchari dated 12.04.2016. Full Article
an Jeva vs State Of Uttarakhand on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.673 of 2024, under Section 8/21/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the Act"), Police Station Patelnagar, District Dehradun. She has sought her release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, on 25.10.2024, 50.17 grams smack was allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant. 4. It is the case of the applicant that the alleged recovered quantity is less than commercial; there is no independent witness; there has been non-compliance of the provisions of the Act; she is not a previous convict. 2 Full Article
an Mukarram vs State Of Uttarakhand on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.138 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506 IPC, Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused have already been granted bail. 4. This fact is admitted by learned State Counsel. 5. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 6. The bail application is allowed. 2 7. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Full Article
an Salman vs State Of Uttarakhand on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.257 of 2023, dated 29.04.2023, under Sections 8/22 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the Act"), Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. This is the second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn on 09.01.2024. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, narcotic substances in commercial quantity was allegedly recovered from the applicant on 28.04.2023. 2 Full Article
