Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 66 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Bhaskar Industries Ltd vs M/S. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. Ors on 27 August, 2001

S/O Late Sh. K.K.Modi vs M/S Modi Rubber Ltd on 16 November, 2019

3. Ld. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the impugned order dated 31.05.2019 is an interlocutory order and hence, cannot be challenged by way of a revision petition u/s 397 and 399 of the Cr.P.C, 1973. That the test to determine whether an order is interlocutory or not under the Act, was established in various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court including Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. And Others [(2001) 7 SCC 401].Going by the test so established by the Apex Court, it is C.R.No.481/19 D.K.Modi v. M/s Modi Rubber Ltd. page 4 submitted that the order is interlocutory order as, assuming but not admitting, that the contention of the petitioner/accused is upheld and the revision petition is allowed, it would not result in the culmination of the trial proceedings. The result, assuming the same is allowed, would be that the complainant evidence would have to be conducted afresh and trial will be set­back about five years but yet the proceedings will not culminate/conclude. Therefore, the revision petition in itself is not maintainable. It is further contended that the pre­summoning evidence was closed on 06.07.2012 after examining the sole complainant witness i.e. Sh.S.K. Bajpai, the Authorized Representative (AR) of the respondent/compainant company. On 14.05.2013, notice u/s 251 of the Code was served to the petitioner/accused through his counsel. On 07.03.2014, a request was made by the respondent/complainant to adopt pre­summoning evidence, a request that went unopposed by the petitioner/accused, rather, time was sought to cross­examine the sole complainant witness. Pursuant thereto, the said witness has been cross­ examined on several hearing including but not only on 16.11.2015, 20.02.2015, 24.04.2018 etc. The accused, over C.R.No.481/19 D.K.Modi v. M/s Modi Rubber Ltd. page 5 five years down the line, ought not be allowed to raise this belated objection, which is clearly bad in law. That adoption of pre­summoning evidence as pre­charge evidence is not unheard of in law and has been duly permitted and in fact, it saves invaluable judicial time. The application filed by the petitioner/accused before the Trial Court although avers that the said adoption is not permitted in law but fails to show how.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next