Remember | Register | Forgot Password?
Bookmark This Page   RSS Feeds  Follow On Twitter

 

Search for Lawyers          
    

Home > Experts > Criminal Law > Ipc 120-b, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477a



Please Wait ..


Ipc 120-b, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477a (Criminal Law)

Report Abuse
This query is : Resolved


Author : Anonymous

Posted On 20 November 2011 at 11:29

A case was booked by a shareholder in the trial court against her private limited company in the above mentioned IPC sections, the evidence provided were the balance sheets and her statement. (Complaint case).

The bailable then the non-bailable warrants were issued against the directors and the auditors of the company.

The company now went for a revision in 397 to the district judge and within one hearing a final order was passed in their favor, without scrutinizing the shareholder victim's statement or the evidence.

The shareholder challenging that went to the High court under 482, and the hight court converted the appeal under criminal revision defective, and the case is pending in high court.

My Question is:
1) The lower trail court will continue with the case as it is or dispose the case as there is no stay of the district judge criminal revision judgement by the high court, if so is there a ruling anywhere?





Expert : Devajyoti Barman

Posted On 20 November 2011 at 11:38

How the sessions court finished the case in its revisional jurisdiction?
Was it a police case or complaint case?

Only the high court has power to quash a case.
However if there is no stay on the decision of the sessions court naturally you can not proceed with the case in trial court.
Even if had there been a stay the trial court is unlikely to move further till the case is disposed of by the high court.



Author : Anonymous

Posted On 20 November 2011 at 11:52

It was a complaint case. The session court (district judge) without calling the records and looking at the evidence (balance sheets) gave the final decision on the revision that the trial court order of non bailable orders for directors and auditors are set aside and that the trial court should look into the matter properly and ascertain the meaning of Shareholder, Director and depositor.

So will the trial court quash the case now (considering no stay is there) or wait for the high court to give the order with regards to the revision done by the district judge?



Expert : Devajyoti Barman

Posted On 20 November 2011 at 11:56

Ok , you should spill all the beans in one go.
It appears that only the summoning order was challenged.

If that is so then you in stead of challenging this order further should have gone to the lower court and satisfy the position.
Anyway since the issue of process is involved the trial would not proceed till the high court pass its verdict.
Expedite it in the high court.



Author : Anonymous

Posted On 20 November 2011 at 12:15

My apologies If I missed out on certain points, that was really helpful, I was wondering if i could contact you via email to seek professional help, in certain other matters as well.

If you would have time please do let me know your email.



Expert : Devajyoti Barman

Posted On 20 November 2011 at 13:18

Ok, no issues.
It is-
devajyoti_barman@yahoo.co.in
devajyoti_barman@hotmail.com
9062412450, 24007986
You could see my profile as well.



Expert : Rajeev Kumar

Posted On 20 November 2011 at 13:51

I agree with Barman



Expert : Shonee Kapoor

Posted On 20 November 2011 at 20:13

Correct, only the NBW is quashed.

The case would still run on merits.

Regards,

Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com



Expert : prabhakar singh

Posted On 21 November 2011 at 10:39

yes, i do agree experts query reply


Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved Lawyersclubindia expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login ( Members Login ) now







Similar Queries :










Quick Links



Browse By Category



Subscribe to Experts Feed
Enter your email to receive Experts Updates:







web analytics