Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 27]

Gujarat High Court

Central Bureau Of Investigation Thro ... vs State Of Gujarat on 3 May, 2019

Author: V. P. Patel

Bench: V.P. Patel

          R/CR.MA/22664/2018                                               ORDER



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
              R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 22664 of 2018
================================================================
 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THRO LALJI GARVA S/O LATE
                      KHIMJI GARVA
                          Versus
               STATE OF GUJARAT & 6 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RC KODEKAR(1395) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6,7
MR KL PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.P. PATEL
                    Date : 03/05/2019
                     ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.R.C. Kodekar for the applicant and learned APP Mr.K.L. Pandya for the respondent­State.

2. This Application is filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") by the applicant.

3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that an amount of Rs.16,00,000/­was sanctioned in favour of M/s Madhuvir Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. without asking for required documents and without following the instructions/guidelines/circulars of NSIC Ltd. that the accused Nos.1 to 4 did not comply with the conditions imposed while sanctioning of RMA facility. It is further submitted that loan was granted without verification of any documents as to the security. That loan was only one the invoice and transaction was not carried out. The transactions are shown in papers only.

3.1. It is further submitted that trial Court has not appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence in proper perspective matter.

4. In view of the above, the matter requires consideration. The leave to appeal is granted. The present application stands disposed of.

(V. P. PATEL,J) KUMAR ALOK Page 1 of 1 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 01 00:31:09 IST 2019