Please clarify the following:
FIR filed on 28-09-2004
Sanction for prosecution was issued on 18-07-2007
Investigation completed by the police officer only on 07-05-2008, i.e nearly 11 months before completion of the investigation
Final report filed in the court on 26-06-2008
summoned on 05-07-2008
Appeared on the court as ordered by the court.
The Special Judge has got the power to deal this case under the prevention of corruption act, 1988 was issued by the Governor only on 11-01-2009.
In the above circumstance, the cognizance offence taken by the Special Judge and the initation of the process of the court under the criminal procedure code is legally valid?
The important point is that the sanction for prosecution under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 should be obtained ONLY AFTER COMPLETION OF INVESTIGATION BY THE POLICE OFFICERS AND PLACING ALL THE MATERIALS BEFORE THE SANCTIONING AUTHORITY FOR PERUSAL OF DOCUMENTS AND APPLICATION OF MIND TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE WHETHER PRIMAFACI CASE IS MADE OUT AND WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY FOR ISSUE OF SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION.
PLEASE QUOTE THE RELEVANT CITATION OF SUPREME COURT CASE LAW IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED.
Please clarify the following:
FIR filed on 28-09-2004
Sanction for prosecution was issued on 18-07-2007
Investigation completed by the police officer only on 07-05-2008, i.e nearly 11 months before completion of the investigation
Final report filed in the court on 26-06-2008
summoned on 05-07-2008
Appeared on the court as ordered by the court.
The Special Judge has got the power to deal this case under the prevention of corruption act, 1988 was issued by the Governor only on 11-01-2009.
In the above circumstance, the cognizance offence taken by the Special Judge and the initation of the process of the court under the criminal procedure code is legally valid?
The important point is that the sanction for prosecution under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 should be obtained ONLY AFTER COMPLETION OF INVESTIGATION BY THE POLICE OFFICERS AND PLACING ALL THE MATERIALS BEFORE THE SANCTIONING AUTHORITY FOR PERUSAL OF DOCUMENTS AND APPLICATION OF MIND TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE WHETHER PRIMAFACI CASE IS MADE OUT AND WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY FOR ISSUE OF SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION.
PLEASE QUOTE THE RELEVANT CITATION OF SUPREME COURT CASE LAW IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED.
Ld Counsels,
When a complaint was made alleging dowry demand and later it was withdrawn after enquiry without registering FIR.
Is the police correct in not registering a FIR and allow for withdrawal. Since dowry demand is a non-compoundable offense is it permissible in law to let the complainant withdraw it with out registering FIR. Another complaint was filed with additional allegations.
How many days can a complaint be kept in pending petition enquiry state.
Please clarify
1)if a person under trial is in custody for a period greater than the term of sentence that can be given to him if he is convicted then is it a suffecient ground for bail 2)what are the sections under which person can claim for right to bail due to oldage
my dad was main accuse in one of the case and some of his property was with court. now that he is dead , what will happen to that property which is with court.
I am the Non-applicant
The applicant filed an application u/s 12 in textual format.
Whereas I raise preliminary objection stating that the Application shall be made by aggrived person in Form II as prescribed by the Rule 6 of the said Act.
Is it necessary to makes application in Form II as per rule 6 of the Said Act.
If any case laws pls provide.
One party had filed 10 cases u/s 138 of N. I. Act at Chhatisgarh for return of cheques against the directors and officers of a public limited company of Ahmedabad. Due to dim chances of revival, the co. was ordered to be wound up in yr.2003. Out of 10 cases, 9 cases were settled by making the payment of principal amount by the ex-directors and the party withdrew all 9 cases in yr.2004. The complainant intentionally did not accept the payment of the last 10th case and has not settled in last 5 years, in spite of the willingness to pay the last amount of principal amount.
Now in yr.2009,the ex-directors of company has got sanctioned by the high court of Gujarat, a scheme of revival and restructuring of the said co u/s 391-394 of the co.’s act. Under the scheme, all the creditors would be paid 25% of principal amount in two installments. The said terms of the scheme were approved by the creditors present in person or proxy (that creditor was not present in person or proxy) in their meeting unanimously with 100% voting in favour. The scheme also stipulates that all the cases against the co. and / or directors-officers of the co. would be withdrawn after getting the amount as per the scheme and if any amount paid after the cut-off date can be also deducted from the payable amount. The payments of those 9 cases were made after cut-off date.
In light of the above facts (1) can the co. appeal to the court at Chhatisgarh and to the complainant to accept the last amount of settlement and withdraw the last case also without demanding interest, penalty and punishment? (as the complainant intends to resort to arm twisting for more payment) (2) The directors can say to the court that as per the scheme enough was paid and can claim an excess amount paid to the said creditor, as the sanctioned scheme stipulates lesser payment?
Please reply and oblige.
R/All
I m representing accused in a case u/s 454/380.Court wrongly framed charged u/s 411 IPC by Typographical mistake). Court has recorded evidence of two witnesses after framing charge,now what will be the fate of this case,if court notice this mistake at any stage & suo moto correct (amend)the charge than the witnesses who has already examined will be summoned again or not.Plz help Thanks
what is the difference between the plea and charge
cognizance of the offence in the absence of a valid sanction
Please clarify the following:
FIR filed on 28-09-2004
Sanction for prosecution was issued on 18-07-2007
Investigation completed by the police officer only on 07-05-2008, i.e nearly 11 months before completion of the investigation
Final report filed in the court on 26-06-2008
summoned on 05-07-2008
Appeared on the court as ordered by the court.
The Special Judge has got the power to deal this case under the prevention of corruption act, 1988 was issued by the Governor only on 11-01-2009.
In the above circumstance, the cognizance offence taken by the Special Judge and the initation of the process of the court under the criminal procedure code is legally valid?
The important point is that the sanction for prosecution under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 should be obtained ONLY AFTER COMPLETION OF INVESTIGATION BY THE POLICE OFFICERS AND PLACING ALL THE MATERIALS BEFORE THE SANCTIONING AUTHORITY FOR PERUSAL OF DOCUMENTS AND APPLICATION OF MIND TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE WHETHER PRIMAFACI CASE IS MADE OUT AND WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY FOR ISSUE OF SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION.
PLEASE QUOTE THE RELEVANT CITATION OF SUPREME COURT CASE LAW IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED.