Types of crl.m.a. in delhi high court

mala (Querist) 06 May 2014 This query is : Resolved
Sir,
1. Whether an appln. for Early Hearing of Crl.A. filed in Delhi High Court is permissible ? if so pl under which sec it falls
2. Whether an appln can be filed to expedite the hearing based on errors in trial court findings since on the bare perusal of the judgement itself it is evident. The trial court had committd an error by giving two findins based on one opinion

3. Whether the petitioner can file the applns on his own as pet.in.person eventhough engaged counsels and counsels wants delay in listing
4. Whether two matters are tagged together and only one wants to expedite the hearing whereas the other one does not want in such a case an application to delink the tagged matter can be filed if so under what sec

BRIEF MATRIX OF THE CASE
1. There were three Accused Persons named as A1 A2 and A3
2. That a complaint was lodged under POC Act 1988 with CBI against A1 and A3
3. Verification team verified and recorded the conversation to prove the demand. The demand was held between the complainant and A1 and A2.
4. After Verification an FIR was registered and named A1 and A2
5. Trap was laid. A2 was caught. Suddenly another person came into picture and told the CBI that this bribe is taken by him at the behest of A1 and A3
6. A2 did not had any contact of A3 and the CBI instructed that new entrant to call A3 for a meeting
7. A3 did not come to the place where the meetng was arranged and was caught from another place
8. A3 was forced to call A1 and subsequently A1 was caught
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
1. The complaint lodged by the complainant is based on hearsay evidence hence not admissible
2. Statement made by the comlainant to CBI wherein he stated another story of another date and this story is not admitted
3. No demand for bribe was proved against A3 hence not charged u/s 13(1)(d) and 13 (2)
A 3 is convicted u/s 7 of poc act and 120B

4. A2 acquitted
5. A1 convicted u/s 7 r/s 13(1)(), 13(2) and 120B of PC Act
6. The new Entrant is an Advocate and as per findings of the court "kingpin and organisor of the show" "Bar councils and Bar Associations of this country to take immediate steps to initiate disciplinary action" "is neither before this court as a witness nor as an accused CBI gave preferential treatment action to be taken against CBI officials"
7. A2 is the junior of the main kingpin hence the amount is accepted at the behest of the employeing advocate and thought it was professional feees.

I am A3 what are the solutions and remedies available for A3 before the Delhi high Court
My name is not mentioned in the FIR Regd.
Kingpin had impersonated his junior in my name
A1 is an accomplice of the kingpin advocate

Follow Query

Report Abuse