02 May 2009
Dear all brothers, In a pending criminal case of 406 of IPC before a metropolitan court of Mumbai,where no plea was recorded yet and hence,trial was not set in motion in real sense. During its pendency,a simple application was made before the said court by the complainant i.e registered corporate body and consequent acquittal of accused took place by mutual trust. Later on, an agent through whom the said criminal complaint was lodged by the said corporate body,filed an application on his own under section 340 of Cr.P.C.against the said corporate body present functionary and the said acquitted accused. The said application was rightly dismissed by the said trial court but the Sessions Court has overturned the said dismissal order. In the light of the above,now please let us know as to said section of 340 is applicable to the said application as the said application is not a "document produced or given in EVIDENCE "? When even plea was not recorded and where was the question of evidence? We are surprised at the perverse judgment of the Sessions Court,which had not mentioned a single word from the 67 paged written arguments involving historic citations of constitution benches of the apex court of the country of the said respondents. Kindly throw some light on the aforesaid dismal scenario and any citation or authority,if available,in a similar situation will be highly appreciated. thanks n regards, Amar Ranu
02 May 2009
In my view detail as you given, the said application u/s 340 is not maintainable. only trial court has jurisdiction to investigate/enquire under said section.Its not clear fom your query that what is the finding of trial court on the said application u/s 340 and on what reason session judge denied the finding of trial court on application.Without further detail exact guidance connot be given.
05 May 2009
Application itself is not maintainable. There is compromise between the corporate body and accused, so in view of the compromise accused is acquitted, then how come the agent of the corporate filed an application. U have told no documentary evidence is given to the court. My view is that when there is a compromise between the coroporate body and accused,it shows that corporate body is not interested to proceed with the case. Hence application is not maintainable.
05 May 2009
We will be grateful if some latest citation or authority is quoted here by my learned brothers by which it can be proved in High Court that only trial court has the jurisdiction as learned brothers are of the considered opinion that trial court has the exclusive jurisdiction in the matter of section 340.