mala
14 February 2015 at 09:51
The case against accused A3 is that
1. he alongwith A1 C. A1 met Sh. R. Venkatraman and complainant on 05.02.2009 in the (R VENKATARAMAN ADVOCATE REGN NO D 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM MOB 9910090030) itself and there a demand of Rs.75,000/was raised for early listing of the matter.
2. The further case of the prosecution is that A1 C. A1, A3 A3, A2 KM Singh and Sh. R. Venkatraman visited the complainant on 06.02.2009 at Jantar Mantar and again raised a demand of Rs.75,000/ for showing favour to the complainant relating to the listing of the case.
3. Thereafter, as per the case of the prosecution, A3 comes into scene
4. The complainant believed what Sh. Venkatraman told him. Sh. Venkatraman is not before this court neither as an accused nor as a witness. Anything comes, without it becomes a hearsay evidence which is not admissible on the face of it.
5. Secondly, the alleged fact of visit of A3 A3 alongwith A1 C.A1, Sh. R. Venkatraman and A2 KM Singh on 06.02.2009 at Jantar Mantar has also not been mentioned by the complainant in his complaint Ex.PW2/A lodged on 09.02.2009. It is a matter of record that this version of the complainant came for the first time in his statement recorded on 03.03.2009. Thus, conspicuous absence of this plea in complaint Ex.PW2/A and existence of the same in the statement u/S.161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant, Ex.PW2/DA dated 03.03.2009, makes this plea unbelievable and unreliable.
6. Thus, I consider that as far as demand is concerned, there is no admissible evidence against accused A3 on record.
Accused A3 has also been charged for the offence u/S.7 & 13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act r/w S.120B IPC.
The prosecution has proved on record that after accused KM Singh being apprehended, further trap was laid in pursuant to which Sh. Venkatraman called A3 A3 and a meeting was fixed outside at Pan kiosk.
The tape recorded conversation, tranript of which has been proved on record indicates that accused A3 was in full knowledge of the transaction of bribe. He also knew the purpose of making of payment by the complainant.
Accused A3 also talked to C. A1 on telephone. This telephonic conversation also indicates that there was meeting of mind between accused A3 and C. A1. In the
QUESTION NEED ANSWERS
1. When it is admitted that anything comes in the absence of R Venkataramn becomes hearsay evidence whereas with the same breathe the trial court finds that R Venkataramn had spoke to A3 on telephone also becomes hearsay evidence coupled with who can be sid to be the maker of this record and who are those witnesses who are competent to identify the voice as per law the person who identified the voice of the accused must be maker of the record or by others who are competent to identify the voice
2. A3 spoke to A1 on telephone hence convicted If it is so then why to ignore the fact that A3 was apprehended prior to this conversation and was under the custody of police hence anything spoken or acts performed are not voluntary
3. A2 got acquitted and R Venkataraman was discharged and the court has returned its findings that ince r venkataraman is discharged by my predecessaor and this court has no device to summon him which clarly shows that ignoring crpc 319
arvindsharma
14 February 2015 at 09:17
1. I am proprietor of a proprietary firm which holds 49% shares in a Pvt Ltd firm.
2. I want to convert the Proprietary firm to partnership firm without changing the name.
3. Kindly guide me the way ahead and method to be followed
Athi Vishal HD
14 February 2015 at 09:05
Respected experts is it true that attempt to suicide decriminalised?
amar
14 February 2015 at 07:20
Cibil updated wrong information. Now after written to them corrected but i wanted to know as what kinds of legal action can be taken against them and member bank ICICI bank whi provided wrong information.
M S Subramanain
14 February 2015 at 06:56
Whether a Director of two private companies not falling under the class of companies - (less than Rs. 10 cr capital thresh hold limit of Sec. 203 ) can continue as Whole Time Director and draw remuneration from both companies. He is not a KMP though his designation is WTD which is defined now. Under Sch V Part I (d) a Mangerial personnel (incl.WTD) is allowed to draw remuneration from more than one company. If so, whether limits set under Part - II - Section V of the Scheule V of the CA 2013 is applicable. The compliance with Sec 196 which is appliable to all companies including private companies is met. However Sec 197 and Sec 198 is not applicable to these private companies. If not what is the best legal alternate.
mahesh khatri
14 February 2015 at 00:09
om ! i know n i have a evidance of this crime due to i my self victim...in 1988 when i was in mumbai..in ajmer my guru s nephue gon in bank with a affi...n dupli...janmpatri..n forge bank a/c in which i was nomini n my big brother was as gardian...but i didnt know about this at that past...now in 2012 i know all about....there was a vill of my name in bank s locker ...now how i can i recover all ??? pl help......thx
TKN
13 February 2015 at 23:52
Dear Sir
My father wrote settlement deed in my favour and registered the same. He has included few clauses in it. I need clarification on the same. I have pasted the clause below.
"That this settlement shall take effect only and immediately upon the lifetime of the settlor upto which date the settlor shall continue to enjoy the property as its sole, absolute and full owner with absolute powers of alienation."
Is above statement means that he can sell the property anytime without the knowledge of the settlees ?
Thanks
mahesh khatri
13 February 2015 at 23:52
who is legal uttaradhikari of that ashram which made by donation ...by law no blood reletives can in...only a main chela/shishy can enter...pl give details.thx.
bijukumar
13 February 2015 at 23:09
Sir. Let me first share some details of my case. Fir as given by the complainant against me reads like, "On.... around 12.30 am in the night while our dumper was carrying some 15000 tea saplings, we met an accident when a small vehicle no...... rashly and negligently driven comming from the opposite side hit in our side of the road. While in the accident no person has been injured significant damages have occurred to the vehicle and since we couldn't return the tea saplings in proper time to the owner, lots of tea saplings got damaged too."
The fir is given by the son of the dumper owner who was accompanying the driver in that vehicle.
In the spot witness 161 however both the complainant and the driver however mentioned that while recklessly driving I killed seven full grown bulls and after that hit their vehicle to cause such damages.
There are three other witnesses who said they arrived at the spot after hearing a loud sound and they too corroborated the fact that I was driving the vehicle recklessly and responsible for all damages involved. Their houses are very nearby to the accident spot. All these are recorded under 161.
Now my part of the story:
1. I haven't hit those seven bulls. But I actually hit one and the one I hit, I was not sure if previously dead or alive.
2. There was certain lapse in my concentration, which is true or under shock I kept believing so. Two things are true: my vehicle speed was around 100 kmph and it was free highway at night and secondly once I hit the bull, I panicked a bit, lost control and hit the other vehicle. The other vehicle was however not completely on the other side of the white dividing line. The national highway is not very wide at this spot and without a divider. The collision was however not head on.
3. All passengers in my vehicle were safe and after the accident however I got hit in the head and nose and started bleeding and lost my consciousness for a little while. My co passenger was a doctor and he made calls to his seniors and other doctors, and they carried me nearby hospital and my injuries were attended by them. So while police arrived at the spot we were actually not there. And they took statements of the other car and the casualties of all the dead cattle were imposed on me. However in fir and the chargesheet, the cattles are not mentioned.
3. Although we became fit enough the very next morning, however certain amount of shock remained with me for a while.
4. After the event however, police never arrested me but while collecting the seized vehicle, I signed few papers. I had a local person who was handling the whole case for me; he was handling the whole case, police and police remained friendly with me and never made aware of the Fir. Only after court's summon I came to know of this.
Sir some portion of the case is true like the accident and I lost hold of the moment when the accident happened. But some portion of it is fabricated. Like those seven bulls. Even if I correctly remember the other vehicle was one eyed.
Sir Please help me in preparing my defence. I have already engaged a senior lawyer but this place being a remote one doesn't have the most updated of them. I need certain points. On which this case can be made into a strong defence. My vehicle's ground clearance is 170 mm. How can we prove that a small vehicle running over seven full grown bulls is an impossibility?
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Domicile certificate
Good Morning,
My daughters were born in Dubai year 2000 and 2001 resp.We came back to India for good in 2005 and daughters were studying in India thereafter. Today, after 10 years I want to apply for Domicile certificate for them. Can they get it as they were born in Dubai and if yes, what is the procedure.
Appreciate your valuable advise.
Thanks