sh Halim Kha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: IA No. 23672 of 2024, an application under Section 301(2) of CrPC moved on behalf of complainant seeking permission of this Court to assist the prosecution in the matter is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein. Shri Aditya Ghuraiya, learned counsel appearing for complainant along with his associates is permitted to assist the prosecution in the matter. This is first application filed by the applicants under Section 482 of BNSS 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail relating to Crime No.146 of 2024 registered at Police Station Pathariya, District Vidisha (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 34 IPC. Full Article
sh Daulat Singh Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: This petition, under Section 482 of CrPC, has been filed for quashing the FIR on the ground of compromise in connection with Crime No.458/2023 registered at Police Station- Kampoo, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 34 of IPC, and all consequential proceedings arising out of it. 2 . Allegation against the petitioners is that on account of old enmity, they came together and petitioner Daulat fired a gunshot with pistol on the complainant while he was drinking beer in his car but the bullet hit the back gate of the car. Full Article
sh Vipin Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: This petition, under Section 482 of CrPC, has been filed for quashing the FIR on the ground of compromise in connection with Crime No.416/2011 registered at Police Station- Bahodapur, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, and all consequential proceedings arising out of it. 2 . Allegation against the petitioner is that he along-with other co- accused on the basis of forged power of attorney sold the plot to the complainant. 3. I.A.No.21627/2024 and I.A. No.21628/2024, applications for compromise have been filed by the petitioners as well as respondent No.2 duly supported by their affidavits. Full Article
sh 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
sh 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
sh Keshav Murari vs Praveen Kumar on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :- "7.1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 18-09-2024 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Narmadapuram, Division Narmadapuram, in Case No. 132/Appeal/2024-2025. 7.2. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to get mutate the name of petitioner in the revenue records on the basis of registered will dated 02-05-2011. 7.3. Any other writ/direction deem fit and proper and fact and circumstance of the case. Full Article
sh 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
sh 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
sh 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
sh Lineesh T B vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The application is filed under Sec.483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, 'BNSS') by the 4th accused in Crime No.376/2024 of the Maradu Police Station, Ernakulam, which is registered against six accused persons, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 20(b)(ii) (A) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, 'NDPS Act') and Section 6(b) r/w Section 24 of the COTPA Act. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 20.03.2024 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that: the accused 1 to 6 had hatched a conspiracy to procure narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance to make illegal profit. Accordingly, the 1st accused received Rs.1,50,000/- from the 5th accused and went in a car BAIL APPL. NO. 6026 OF 2024 2024:KER:83332 bearing registration No.KL-07-CA-4056 to Bangalore and purchased 180 grams of MDMA from the 6 th accused. After the accused 1 to 3 returned back to Kerala with the contraband article, they handed over 80 grams of MDMA to the 4th accused. They also proposed to give 100 grams of MDMA to the 5 th accused for the money he paid the 1st accused. While the 1st accused was traveling in the car with 100 grams of MDMA, 4 grams of ganja and Hans, to hand over the same to the 5th accused, the Detecting Officer intercepted the vehicle at Maradu, Ernakulam and seized 101.09 grams of MDMA from the car. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. Full Article
sh 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
sh Aakarsh 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('BNSS', for the sake of brevity), by the third accused in Crime No.1231/2024 of the Town East Police Station, Thrissur, which is registered against four accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 29 & 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, 'NDPS Act'). The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 01.08.2024. 2. The concise case of the prosecution, is that: on 22.07.2024, at around 04:20 hours, the first accused was found in conscious possession of 45 grams of MDMA. He was arrested on the spot with the contraband article. During the course of the investigation and interrogation of the first accused, it 2024:KER:83250 was revealed that it was the fourth accused who had given financial assistance to the first accused. The accused Nos.2 & 3 are also involved in the case. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. Full Article
sh Blue Star Limited vs Shriram Epc Limited on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: reasonable time. The allegation against the respondent is that the respondent has not cooperated with the learned Arbitrator during the proceeding. Learned Advocate for the respondent denies such allegation and submits that an affidavit is required to be filed in this matter. Considering the fact that the arbitration proceeding is on the verge of completion, the allegations levelled against the respondent are irrelevant in the present context as justice would be subserved if the mandate of the learned Arbitrator is extended by a further period of six months to enable the learned Arbitrator to conclude the proceeding and make and publish the award. As no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations against the respondent are deemed to have been denied by it. Full Article
sh Blue Star Limited vs Shriram Epc Limited on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: reasonable time. The allegation against the respondent is that the respondent has not cooperated with the learned Arbitrator during the proceeding. Learned Advocate for the respondent denies such allegation and submits that an affidavit is required to be filed in this matter. Considering the fact that the arbitration proceeding is on the verge of completion, the allegations levelled against the respondent are irrelevant in the present context as justice would be subserved if the mandate of the learned Arbitrator is extended by a further period of six months, to enable the learned Arbitrator to conclude the proceeding and make and publish the award. As no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations against the respondent are deemed to have been denied by it. Full Article
sh 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
sh 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
sh 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
sh 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
sh 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
sh M/S Nesh India Infrastructure Private ... vs Savita Sah on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: being done in the light of Bihar Apartment Ownership Act, 2006, it was agreed that the builder shall provide flats of super built up area of 2.25 times of their given land admeasuring area of 2000 sq.ft. i.e. 4500 sq.ft. to each of them along with a parking space for a four-wheeler vehicle with each flat. In view of clause 5 of Development Agreement, a Patna High Court MA No.296 of 2021 dt.12-11-2024 separate supplementary agreement was also executed on the same day between the owners and developers for determination of actual share portion wherein the builder agreed to give three flats each of 1440 sq.ft. as follows:- Full Article
sh Purshoda vs Chardham on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Mr. A.M. Saklani, Advocate for the revisionist. The challenge in this revision is made to the following:- (a) The judgment and order dated 19.12.2023, passed in Criminal Case No.929 of 2021, Devchandra Purshoda Vs. Chardham Construction, by the court of Judicial Magistrate, New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal ("the case"). Full Article
sh Purshoda vs Chardham on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Mr. A.M. Saklani, Advocate for the revisionist. The challenge in this revision is made to the following:- (a) The judgment and order dated 19.12.2023, passed in Criminal Case No.930 of 2021, Devchandra Purshoda Vs. Chardham Construction, by the court of Judicial Magistrate, New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal ("the case"). Full Article
sh Mr. Devesh Upreti vs Unknown on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1. Mr. Devesh Upreti, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. 3. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant - convict against the judgment and order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Champawat in Special Sessions Trial No. 49 of 2019 (State Vs. Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakki) whereby appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 8/21 (b) of the NDPS Act with a sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo additional imprisonment of three month. Full Article
sh Krishan Kumar Alias Kishan Ram vs State Of Uttarakhand on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The applicant is in judicial custody in S.T. No.32 of 202 in connection with FIR/Case Crime No.139 of 2022, dated 21.07.2022, under Sections 302, 201, 304- B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Pithoragarh, District Pithoragarh. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, the deceased was married to the applicant 5 years prior to lodging of the FIR. They were blessed with a daughter. The deceased was staying in her mother's house along with her daughter. The FIR records that on 20.07.2022, at about 01:00 PM, the applicant took the deceased along with her daughter with him. At 02:30 PM on that date he informed the son of the informant that the deceased would return by evening. When the deceased did not return, next morning at 07:00 AM, the applicant was telephoned by the informant, but the applicant told that the deceased had returned on the previous evening. On the same day, the dead body of the deceased was found. Full Article
sh Samsher Singh vs Vinod Kumar on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION 1. Vide this judgement, this court shall dispose of the aforementioned complaint case filed by the complainant namely, Samsher Singh against the accused, namely Vinod Kumar in respect of the dishonour of six cheques bearing no.415029 dated 31.05.2016 for an amount of Rs.45000/-, no. 415028 dated 25.05.2016 for an amount of Rs. 45,000/-, no. 415027 dated 15.05.2016 for an amount of Rs. 45,000/-, no. 415026 dated 01.05.2016 for an amount of Rs. 45,000/-, no. 415031 dated 09.06.2016 for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- and no. 415030 dated 07.06.2016 for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- all drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi Branch (2120) Maharaja Aggrasen Shopping Complex, LAX-7, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (hereinafter referred to as the "Cheques in question"). Full Article
sh State vs Ram @ Himanshu on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 11.Date on which Order Announced : 12.11.2024. SC No. 464/2021 FIR No. 417/2021 U/s. 307 IPC State Vs. Ram @ Himanshu PS : Badarpur Page No.1 of 31 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION: 1. The prosecution case against accused Ram @ Himanshu in brief is that on 11/07/2021, at about 08:30 PM, at Main Market, Gautam Puri, near Valmiki Mandir, within the jurisdiction of PS Badarpur, he caused injuries on forehead and occipital region exposing bone calvaria of victim Dinesh Kumar, with chopper (meat cutting knife). The FIR was registered on the basis of PCR call through GD No.90A and accused Ram @ Himanshu was arrested on 12/07/2021 and, on completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for offence U/s. 307 IPC. Full Article
sh Smt. Raj Wati vs Sh. Kuldeep on 6 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs Only) on account of cost of dowry articles/ Istridhan etc. detained by the defendants. It is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the present civil suit, the defendants no. 2 and 4 have expired. Raj wati Vs. Kuldeep Page no. 2 Plaintiff's version as per the plaint 2. The plaintiff states that she is the mother of deceased late Smt. Sunita who was wife of the defendant no. 1 Kuldeep. The marriage of Late Smt. Sunita and the defendant no. 1 was solemnized on 20.02.1996 in accordance with Hindu rights and customs and the plaintiff claims to have spent an amount of more than Rs.5 lacs on the said marriage. The plaintiff relies on a detailed list of dowry articles annexed as schedule C to the plaint. Full Article
sh Santosh Dang vs Amrinder Bhatia on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present complaint case filed by the complainant, Ms. Santosh Dang (hereinafter referred as the 'complainant) against the accused Amrinder Bhatia (hereinafter, referred as the 'accused'), u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short "NI Act"). Complainant's Case 2. In a nutshell, the facts of the present case as per the complaint are that the accused and his parents approached and requested the complainant for financial help to save his auto spare parts and his car which was forcibly taken by one Gagan and Rahul. The accused told the complainant that these two persons have also threatened him with dire consequences if the accused fails to pay their debt. It is averred that considering the request of the accused being the friend of his daughter, provided financial assistance to the accused. Full Article
sh Pawan Kumar vs Ved Prakash Dhuria on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Brief statement of reasons for the decision 1. This case has been instituted by the complainant, Mr. Pawan Kumar under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused, Mr. Ved Prakash Dhuria for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the "NI Act"). Brief Facts: 2. The substance of the allegations and assertion of the complainant is that the complainant had advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the accused on 09.10.2018 for four months with interest at the rate of 2% per month, given the needs of the accused and cordial relations between them. It is alleged that a loan agreement and receipt dated 09.10.2018 were also executed between the parties. It is further alleged that the accused issued two post-dated cheques, cheque No. 000029 dated 06.04.2021 and cheque No. 000030 dated 06.04.2021 both for a sum of Rs. 2,34,000/- each drawn on Bank, Of India, Pitampura Branch, Delhi in favour of the complainant (hereinafter referred to as the by MEENA MEENA CHAUHAN CHAUHAN Date: 2024.11.11 15:18:42 +0530 "impugned cheque"). After an expiry of four months and despite repeated demands, the accused did not repay the loan amount, then, a legal notice dated 14.03.2019 was sent to the accused to discharge his liability. Then, on instructions of the accused, the complainant presented the impugned cheques at his bank. However, both were dishonoured by the bank for the reasons "Funds Insufficient" vide memos dated 07.04.2021. Then, a demand notice dated 13.04.2021 was sent to the accused's address via Speed Post calling upon him to pay the cheque amounts. Despite the service of notice upon the accused, neither the accused paid the cheque amount nor replied to the notice. Hence, it is alleged that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. Full Article
sh Santosh Dang vs Gursharan Singh Bhatia on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present complaint case filed by the complainant, Ms. Santosh Dang (hereinafter referred as the 'complainant) against the accused Gursharan Singh Bhatia (hereinafter, referred as the 'accused'), u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short "NI Act"). Complainant's Case 2. In a nutshell, the facts of the present case as per the complaint are that the accused, his wife and his son approached and requested the complainant for financial help to save his auto spare parts and his car which was forcibly taken by one Gagan and Rahul. The son of the accused told the complainant that these two persons have also threatened him with dire consequences if he fails to pay their debt. It is averred that considering the request of the son of the accused being the friend of his daughter, provided financial assistance to the accused. Full Article
sh Mahesh Singh vs Virendra Singh on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 30.4. Deduction for personal expenses (1/3rd of Rs.1,67,775/-) = (-)Rs. 55,925/- 30.5. Multiplicand ( Rs.1,67,775−Rs.55,925/-) = Rs. 1,11,850/- 30.6. As such, the total loss of dependency is: Rs. 1,11,850/- ( multiplicand) x 14 (multiplier)= Rs.15,65,900/- Grant of Loss of Estate, Loss Of Consortium And Funeral Expenses: 31. In this regard in Pranay Sethi (supra) it was held : ''...............46. Another aspect which has created confusion pertains to grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses..... . Full Article
sh State vs Shishu Pal on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1. The accused Shishu Pal has faced the present trial for the offence u/s 302 IPC for committing murder of his real brother namely Satyadev by strangulating him with the help of a shoe lace. The case of the prosecution: 2. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on receipt of call vide DD No. 31 A dated 15.07.2018, ASI Brahm Swaroop reached Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel (SVBP) Hospital, Patel Nagar where deceased Satyadev was reported to be brought dead. The emergency card of SVBP hospital indicates that he was brought there by the accused. The doctor at the hospital noticed a scar mark on the neck of the deceased. The post mortem report opined that the cause of death as asphyxia due to ligature strangulation. In the subsequent opinion the doctor opined that the death was possible with the alleged weapon of offence i.e shoelace recovered at the instance of the accused. After the post mortem report was received the FIR was registered on 19.07.2018. On the same day the accused was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. On the next day the IO obtained the police custody of the accused and at the instance of the accused, the shoelace allegedly used in the offence, was recovered from the room situated at the first floor of the house of the accused and the deceased. Pooja, wife of deceased raised her suspicion on the accused as her husband i.e. deceased Satyadev was a habitual drunker due to which there used to be quarrels State Vs Shishu Pal SC No.780/2018 FIR No. 201/2018 2/42 between Satyadev and his elder brother Shishupal. She stated that at the time of incident, she had gone to her parental home at Farukhkabad, U.P. After completion of investigation, t he chargesheet was filed against the accused. Full Article
sh State vs Radhey Shyam on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1. Brief facts of this case are that on 05-05-2015 at about 2:15 pm, an information was received at PS New Usmanpur through PCR van B-52 that niece of caller has been thrown off the stairs by her husband at H. No. 22/23, Gali no. 2, G-Block, Shastri Park, Delhi. The information was reduced into writing vide DD no. 42B (Ex. PW1/A) and the same was marked to SI Dharmender (hereinafter referred to as first IO/ investigating officer). Thereafter, IO along with HC Sudhir and Ct. Rahul reached at the spot i.e. H. No. G-48, Gali no. 2, Shastri Park, Delhi where they found that a 30 years old lady was lying dead and there was an injury mark on her neck. The family members of the said deceased were present there. The father of deceased namely Sh. Om Prakash informed that dead body was of his daughter namely Hemlata, who got married about 6½ years ago. Crime Team and photographer were called and spot was got photographed from different angles. Sh. Rajesh Dhawal, who was looking after the work of SDM Seelampur, had arrived and recorded statement of Sh. Om Prakash, father of deceased. Sh. Om Prakash stated that he was residing at 313A, Neelam Bata Road, AC Nagar, Faridabad. The deceased Hemlata was her second number child amongst four children. His daughter got married with Radhey Shyam s/o late Sh. Makhan Lal about 6½ years ago. The matrimonial life of her daughter was not good. His son-in-law namely Radhey Shyam had started making demands of money after marriage. There used to be continuous quarrel between the couple. His daughter was unhappy for the last six years. They tried to console her but she used to abuse them. His son-in-law was indulged in bad activities and committed various criminal offences which includes theft and stabbing. Every time his daughter used to call him, she stated that her husband used to intimidate her. There were two children out of the wedlock. His daughter Hemlata used to report telephonically to him that her mother-in-law and younger brother-in-law Vicky also used to fight with her and used to snap electricity supply. On 05-05-2015, at about 11 am, his son Rohtash had received a phone call of mother-in-law of Hemlata, who stated that something wrong has happened with Hemlata. When he called them after some time, she stated that his daughter Hemlata is unwell. When they reached the matrimonial house of his deceased daughter, then the mother-in-law of deceased daughter stated that his daughter had fallen from stairs. His son- in-law was also present on the second floor of the house and he did not bother to come downstairs. He asked the mother-in-law of the deceased as to why they had not taken her to hospital if she had fallen from stairs to which she did not give any satisfactory explanation. He noticed injury mark on the neck of his deceased daughter. He immediately called at 100 number. He stated that it appeared that her daughter Hemlata had been killed by her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. After recording the above-stated statement, Sh. Rajesh Dhawal immediately directed the IO to take action as per law and to proceed for postmortem of deceased. The dead body was sent to mortuary of GTB hospital under the supervision of Ct. Rahul. The IO prepared rukka and got the present FIR registered u/s 498A/304B/34 of IPC. Thereafter, SDM proceeded to record statement of mother of deceased namely Meera Devi, who also levelled similar allegations against the in-laws of the deceased as levelled by father of the deceased. The site plan of the spot was prepared by the IO. The accused Radhey Shyam was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. Pointing out of place of incident was prepared. On 06-05-2015, lady Ct. had removed the articles worn by the dead body and the same were handed over to the IO, who prepared pulanda and thereafter, took the same into police possession. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted under the supervision of Executive Magistrate. After conclusion of postmortem, dead body was handed over to the father of deceased Om Prakash. At that stage, Section 302 of IPC was added. PC remand of the accused was obtained and during PC remand, accused Radhey Shyam confessed that he committed murder of deceased Hemlata after strangulating her with nylon chunni. The accused got recovered the said nylon chunni from first floor of his house which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/B. The said nylon chunni was 64 inch long and 2 inch in width. The said chunni was tied with a black colour thread at one of its end which was 17 inch in length. Accused Gyan Devi and Hari Shankar @ Vicky were being searched but they were not found. Accused Radhey Shyam was got medically examined at JPC hospital. During medical examination, doctor concerned had handed over one pulanda containing blood sample on gauze of accused to police, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW29/B. On 09-05-2014, the investigation of the present case was marked to Inspector Mahavir Singh (hereinafter referred as second IO). On 18-05-2015, the second IO had obtained viscera of the deceased, nail clippings with seal of JSV from mortuary of GTB hospital. Same were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW30/A. On 25-05-2015, the complainant Om Prakash had handed over photographs of the marriage, marriage card, receipt of motorcycle given in marriage, photocopy of insurance, photographs of motorcycle and list of dowry articles, CD/DVD of marriage to the IO. Same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/E. On 13-06-2015, postmortem report along with one sealed report with seal of JSV was collected from GTB hospital. In the PM report, cause of death of deceased was opined as asphyxia as the result of antemortem ligature strangulation. Subsequent opinion regarding use of recovered nylon chunni was obtained from the autopsy surgeon wherein the doctor concerned had opined that ligature mark present around neck of deceased corresponds with the alleged ligature material given for examination. The photographs and crime scene inspection report were received. On 28-07-2015, the exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini for opinion. On the same day, the IO got verified one complaint filed by the deceased Hemlata in the year 2010 to CAW Cell, Faridabad. IO got prepared scaled site plan through Inspector Mahesh Kumar. Since the accused Gyan Devi and Vicky were evading their arrest, the IO obtained their NBWs from the concerned court on 02-07-2015. On 30-07-2015, accused Gyan Devi and Vicky had surrendered themselves in the court, they were formally arrested and interrogated. Their disclosure statements were recorded separately. Their PC remand was obtained wherein they pointed out the place of incident. After completion of necessary formalities, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Ld. Ilaqa MM. Full Article
sh J Usha vs South Central Railway (Secunderabad) on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: : The Appellant filed an (online/offline) RTI application dated 06.04.2023 seeking the following information: "1. Please provide the below information of under all Railway Zones of Indian Railways on all India basis. S.No Name of the Full postal Address Name of the Telephone/Mo Email ID of Railway with PIN code of officer bile Nos. of the the Unions/Mazdoor the Railway Bearers and Officers Railway Sanghs/Associati Union/Mazdorr Designations bearers Unions/Ma ons Sanghs/Association zdoor s Sanghs/As sociations Full Article
sh J Usha vs South Central Railway (Secunderabad) on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: : The Appellant filed an (online/offline) RTI application dated 06.04.2023 seeking the following information: "1. Please provide the below information of under all Railway Zones of Indian Railways on all India basis. S.No Name of the Full postal Address Name of the Telephone/Mo Email ID of Railway with PIN code of officer bile Nos. of the the Unions/Mazdoor the Railway Bearers and Officers Railway Sanghs/Associati Union/Mazdorr Designations bearers Unions/Ma ons Sanghs/Association zdoor s Sanghs/As sociations Full Article
sh J Usha vs Ministry Of Railways (Railway Board) on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: : The Appellant filed an (online/offline) RTI application dated 06.04.2023 seeking the following information: "1. Please provide the below information of under all Railway Zones of Indian Railways on all India basis. S.No Name of the Full postal Address Name of the Telephone/Mo Email ID of Railway with PIN code of officer bile Nos. of the the Unions/Mazdoor the Railway Bearers and Officers Railway Sanghs/Associati Union/Mazdorr Designations bearers Unions/Ma ons Sanghs/Association zdoor s Sanghs/As sociations Full Article
sh Vandana Sishodiya vs Indian Army on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: : The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 20.05.2023 seeking the following information: "I am enclosing herewith a Photocopy letter dated 25/9/23 regarding Departmental Grocery Card No CAO 5112259933/201N0o., which was not activated by the Aligarh Depot due to which I Could not got my necessary groceries items. Recognizing this I need information & copies of documents as per following points:- 1. Please intimate the date of receipt of aforesaid letter 2. Please provide a certified photocopy of aforesaid letter 3. Please provide the information regarding action taken on my above letter by the appropriate authority since the date of issuing to this date. Full Article
sh Manish Bhimte vs Ministry Of Railways (Railway Board) on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: : The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 20.04.2023 seeking the following information: "1. Whether exclusion of the undersigned in the list of DRMs posting order issued by Railway Board dated 07.03.2023 was on account of a pending major DAR case? If so, on what basis order of the undersigned on deputation to Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited vide order no. 2022/E(O)II/6/19 dated 12.09.2022 as Chief Engineer (Rolling Stock) was issued despite pending DAR case Whether Railway Board is following different criteria for DAR clearance for deputation posting) (Please furnish name & designation of authority that gave approval for above Major DAR case? Please furnish name & designation of authority who has gone into this DAR case detail and given any recommendation on case file to make it a fit case for major penalty proceeding?) Full Article
sh Vandana Sishodiya vs Indian Army on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: : The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 20.05.2023 seeking the following information: "I am enclosing herewith a Photocopy letter dated 25/9/23 regarding Departmental Grocery Card No CAO 5112259933/201N0o., which was not activated by the Aligarh Depot due to which I Could not got my necessary groceries items. Recognizing this I need information & copies of documents as per following points:- 1. Please intimate the date of receipt of aforesaid letter 2. Please provide a certified photocopy of aforesaid letter 3. Please provide the information regarding action taken on my above letter by the appropriate authority since the date of issuing to this date. Full Article
sh Bhupendra Sharma vs Indian Army on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: : The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 06.05.2023 seeking the following information: "1. प्रार्थी की पत्नि श्रीमति पायल शमाा के ईलाज में बेस हात्पपटल में दी गयी दवाइयो का समपि वववरण उपलब्ध कराये और यह भी अवगि करायें कक दी गयी दवाईयाां ककस बबमारी से सम्बत्धधि है ? जिवरी 2019 से ददसम्बर 2019 का समपि ररकार्ा उपलब्ध करायें। 2. अपीलीय अधधकारी का िाम व पिा अवगि कराये ?" Page 1 of 5 The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.05.2023 stating as under: "आपके द्वारा उपरोक्ि पत्र के पैरा 1 के अिुसार माांगी गई जािकारी को आरटीआई अधधतियम 2005, धारा ३, ६ (ⅰ), ८ (i) (ई) और धारा ११ के प्रावधािों के िहि िहीां ददया जा सकिा।" Full Article
sh Vandana Sishodiya vs Ministry Of Defence on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: : The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 20.05.2023 seeking the following information: "I am enclosing herewith a Photocopy letter dated 25/9/23 regarding Departmental Grocery Card No CAO 5112259933/201N0o., which was not activated by the Aligarh Depot due to which I Could not got my necessary groceries items. Recognizing this I need information & copies of documents as per following points:- 1. Please intimate the date of receipt of aforesaid letter 2. Please provide a certified photocopy of aforesaid letter 3. Please provide the information regarding action taken on my above letter by the appropriate authority since the date of issuing to this date. Full Article
sh B.Vijaya @ Vijayalakshmi vs R.Balakrishnan on 7 November, 2017 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: R.SAKTHIVEL, J. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Cross Objection are at the instance of the petitioner / appellant and the respondent respectively. In both the cases, challenge is to the Judgment and Decree dated November 7, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2 of 24 CMA NO.3541 OF 2017 & CROSS OBJ. NO.51 OF 2019 2017 passed by the ‘Principal Family Court, Coimbatore’ ['Family Court' for short], in H.M.O.P.No.1445 of 2015. This Common Judgment will govern both of them. Full Article
sh Ms/.Sree Basaveshwar Sugars Ltd vs M/S.Uttam Industrial Engineering Pvt. ... on 28 October, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: [Judgment of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Captioned intra-Court appeal i.e., 'Original Side Appeal' {hereinafter 'OSA' for the sake of brevity} is under Section 37 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)' [hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. 2. Short facts (shorn of particulars not imperative for appreciating this order) are that the appellant before this 'Commercial Appellate Division' {'CAD' for the sake of brevity} is engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing and distributing Sugar and its by-products; that the appellant shall hereinafter be referred to as 'SBSL' denoting 'Sree Basaveshwar Sugars Limited'; that the respondent before this CAD is a company which is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing and supplying / selling plant, machinery and equipment required for sugar plants; that the respondent before CAD shall hereinafter be referred to as 'UIEPL' denoting 'Uttam Industrial Engineering Private Limited'; that short facts / abbreviations are deployed for the sake of brevity and convenience; that fulcrum or in other words nucleus of lis between the parties is a 'contract dated 05.05.2011' {hereinafter 'said contract' for the sake of brevity}; that vide said contract, UIEPL {to be noted, 'UIEPL' shall be referred to as 'contractor' also for the sake of brevity and convenience} was to design and supply Sugar Mill House Equipments for sugar factory of SBSL {to be noted, 'SBSL' shall be referred to as 'employer' also for the sake of brevity and convenience}; that under the said contract, contractor was to supply employer in Karnataka all material and equipments so as to enable erection and commissioning of Mill House equipments including Cane Handling on or before April 2012; that said contract broadly had three aspects included in it namely, (i) Commercial Terms and Condition for supply at site, (ii) Technical Terms and Conditions and (iii) Data Sheet and Annexure; that under the said contract, contractor UIEPL supplied the sugar house https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis equipments till May 2012; that thereafter, said contract ran into rough weather as according to the contractor, employer did not make payments though clause 1.14.6 of the said contract stipulates that employer has to pay as per invoice without making deductions unless the details of such claims have already been communicated to the contractor; that according to the contractor, as per clause 1.14.1(d) of said contract, money should have been settled within 15 days; that this Court is on a legal drill under Section 37 of A and C Act and therefore it is really not necessary to delve into numbers in terms of claims with specificity and exactitude; that it will suffice to say that employer in and by a notice dated 12.02.2012 terminated the said contract; that this lead to eruption of arbitrable disputes and constitution of a three member 'Arbitral Tribunal' {'AT' for the sake of brevity}; that before AT, UIEPL contractor was claimant and SBSL employer was respondent; that contractor as claimant made a claim for a sum of a little over Rs.4.43 Crores stating that the same are monies due from employer SBSL for supply of machinery and equipments supplied during the period of 23.12.2011 to 15.03.2018 under said contract; that this amount of a little over Rs.4.43 Crores (Rs.4,43,56,687/- to be precise) was claimed with interest at 14% per https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis annum; that employer SBSL as respondent before AT resisted the claim and also made a counter claim for Rs.5 Crores saying that the same is towards damages said to have been suffered by SBSL for breach of terms of said contract; that this damages of Rs.5 Crores was claimed by employer SBSL with 18% interest per annum; that AT, after full contest, made an 'award dated 03.08.2019' {hereinafter 'impugned award' for the sake of brevity} inter alia returning a verdict in favour of claimant / contractor / UIEPL in a sum of Rs.4,43,56,687/- together with 12% interest per annum besides costs of Rs.6 Lakhs; that as regards the counter claim of employer SBSL i.e., counter claim of Rs.5 Crores, the entire counter claim was dismissed as a case of no evidence {no pleadings with specificity too}; that the employer SBSL assailed the impugned award under Section 34 of A and C Act vide O.P.No.39 of 2020 and Section 34 Court in and by an 'order dated 30.06.2021' {hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity} dismissed the Section 34 petition; that against the impugned order of Section 34 Court, captioned OSA has been filed by SBSL employer; that the captioned appeal was heard out in full; Full Article
sh Shebik vs The State Rep. By on 4 June, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The accused No.2 in C.C.No.245 of 2022 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, has filed this Criminal Appeal before this Court challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him in the impugned judgment dated 05.05.2023. The conviction and sentence is as follows: Conviction for the Offence under Sentence of Imprisonment Section 8(c) r/w 21(C) of the NDPS Act 12 years R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.1,20,000/- in default to undergo 6 months S.I Full Article
sh ) Laxmidhar Sethi vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 11.11.2024 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the records. 3. This is an application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. filed by the Petitioners for anticipatory bail, involving offence punishable under Sections 498-A / 323 / 342 / 506 /307 / 34 of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of D.P. Act in G.R. Case No.1305 of 2024 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Chatrapur arising out of Chamakhandi P.S. Case No.373 of 2024. Full Article
sh Asutosh Patra @ Sonu vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 11.11.2024 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records. 3. The Petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 341/384/294/506/307/323/ 325/379 of I.P.C. in G.R. Case No.87 of 2018 of the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Nimapara arising out of Nimapara P.S. Case No.33 of 2018. 4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that earlier the Petitioner approached this Court by filing ABLAPL No.2915 of 2018. The said bail application was disposed of by a coordinate bench of this Court on 30.01.2019 thereby directing the Petitioner to surrender before the court below and move an application for bail with a corresponding direction to the learned court in seisin over the matter to dispose of the bail application on the very same day. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture submitted that due to communication gap with the conducting counsel, the Petitioner could not take advantage of order dated 30.01.2019. Full Article
sh Rajendra Rout vs State Of Odisha .... Opp. Party on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant. This is an application under section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in connection with G.R. Case No.104 of 2020 arising out of Rajkanika P.S. Case No.58 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Aul for alleged commission of offences under sections 341/294/323/324/354- B/506/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Perused the first information report annexed to the anticipatory bail application. Full Article
sh Md. Faizuddin Khan @ vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 12.11.2024 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records. 3. The Petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 406/ 468/471/ 420/ 120-B/34 I.P.C. read with Section 4/5 of The Prize, Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act in 1.C.C. No.1498 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.953 of 2014 of the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak arising out of Bhadrak Town P.S. Case No.78 of 2014. Full Article
sh Jaydevsinh Ashoksinh Jadeja vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 11.11.2024 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard Senior learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the Informant. Perused the records. 3. This is an application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. filed by the Petitioner for anticipatory bail, involving offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 66(C), 66(D) of I.T. Act in C.T. Case No.399 of 2024 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar arising out of Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.11 of 2024. Full Article
sh Bijay Kumar Jena vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 12.11.2024 Order No. 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records. 3. The Petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 147/148/323/325/307/302/ 427/506/149 of I.P.C. in G.R. Case No.170 of 2017 of the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur arising out of Mahanga P.S. Case No.49 of 2017. 4. Considering the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. However, on the submission of the learned counsel, the Petitioner is given liberty to surrender before the learned court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case in the first hour within 21 working days hence and move for bail. On such event, the learned Magistrate shall consider his application for bail in the first hour strictly on the basis of the materials on record. In case of rejection of the bail application, the Petitioner may move for bail before the higher forum in the second hour. On such event, the higher forum shall consider and dispose of the bail application of the Petitioner on the same day strictly on the basis of the materials on record, by maintaining the principles of parity, if applicable. Full Article
