cites: 16943628 tag: criminal-procedure-code

Anju Chaudhary vs State Of U.P.& Anr on 13 December, 2012

In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon judgment dated 11.09.2015 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-29708-2014 titled Ajay Kumar Sandhu Vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M-15719-2005 titled 'Dhan Raj Jain and another Vs. State of Haryana and another', judgment of Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2039 of 2012 titled 'Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and another', Criminal Appeal No.179 of 2008 titled 'Suresh Nanda Vs. C.B.I', Criminal Appeal No.1133, 1134 of 2009 titled 'Jeewan Kumar Raut Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation', Criminal Appeal No.569 of 2003 titled 'Saumindra Bhattacharya Vs. State of Bihar and another' and Privy Council Appeal No.11 of 1936 titled 'Nazir Ahmad Vs. King Emperor'.

Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 232 - S Kumar - Full Document

Suresh Nanda vs C.B.I on 24 January, 2008

In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon judgment dated 11.09.2015 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-29708-2014 titled Ajay Kumar Sandhu Vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M-15719-2005 titled 'Dhan Raj Jain and another Vs. State of Haryana and another', judgment of Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2039 of 2012 titled 'Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and another', Criminal Appeal No.179 of 2008 titled 'Suresh Nanda Vs. C.B.I', Criminal Appeal No.1133, 1134 of 2009 titled 'Jeewan Kumar Raut Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation', Criminal Appeal No.569 of 2003 titled 'Saumindra Bhattacharya Vs. State of Bihar and another' and Privy Council Appeal No.11 of 1936 titled 'Nazir Ahmad Vs. King Emperor'.

Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 258 - Full Document

Nasir Ahmad And Ors. vs King-Emperor on 12 May, 1927

In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon judgment dated 11.09.2015 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-29708-2014 titled Ajay Kumar Sandhu Vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M-15719-2005 titled 'Dhan Raj Jain and another Vs. State of Haryana and another', judgment of Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2039 of 2012 titled 'Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and another', Criminal Appeal No.179 of 2008 titled 'Suresh Nanda Vs. C.B.I', Criminal Appeal No.1133, 1134 of 2009 titled 'Jeewan Kumar Raut Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation', Criminal Appeal No.569 of 2003 titled 'Saumindra Bhattacharya Vs. State of Bihar and another' and Privy Council Appeal No.11 of 1936 titled 'Nazir Ahmad Vs. King Emperor'.

Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 629 - Full Document

Dhanraj N. Asawani vs Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi on 25 July, 2023

19. The case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand and there is also no force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the EPF and ESI Acts being special statutes, the same will prevail over the provisions of Cr.P.C. In view of Explanation-I and Explanation-II of Section 405 IPC, which specifically provide that whosoever deducts and 23 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 14-11-2025 08:19:56 ::: CRM-M-33248-2016 24 does not pay employees' contribution of the provident fund and ESI shall be deemed to have committed the offence under Section 405 of IPC. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhanraj N. Asawani's case (supra) has held that Section 4 Cr.P.C. provides that all offences under the IPC shall be investigated, inquired into and tried according to the provisions of Cr.P.C. Section 4(2) structures the application of Cr.P.C. in situations where a special procedure is prescribed under any special enactment, as held in (1994) 3 SCC 299 titled State of Punjab Vs. Balbir Singh. It has been further held that Section 4(2) lays down that the provisions of Cr.P.C. shall apply to all offences under any other law apart from IPC. However, the application of the Cr.P.C. will be excluded only where a special law prescribes special procedures to be dealt with in the investigation, inquiry or the trial of the special offence. As already discussed above, in the present case, misappropriation of contribution to the EPF and ESI has been made punishable under Section 406 of IPC as well, in view of Explanation-I and Explanation-II of Section 405 of IPC, which defines criminal breach of trust.

Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Balbir Singh on 1 March, 1994

19. The case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand and there is also no force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the EPF and ESI Acts being special statutes, the same will prevail over the provisions of Cr.P.C. In view of Explanation-I and Explanation-II of Section 405 IPC, which specifically provide that whosoever deducts and 23 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 14-11-2025 08:19:56 ::: CRM-M-33248-2016 24 does not pay employees' contribution of the provident fund and ESI shall be deemed to have committed the offence under Section 405 of IPC. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhanraj N. Asawani's case (supra) has held that Section 4 Cr.P.C. provides that all offences under the IPC shall be investigated, inquired into and tried according to the provisions of Cr.P.C. Section 4(2) structures the application of Cr.P.C. in situations where a special procedure is prescribed under any special enactment, as held in (1994) 3 SCC 299 titled State of Punjab Vs. Balbir Singh. It has been further held that Section 4(2) lays down that the provisions of Cr.P.C. shall apply to all offences under any other law apart from IPC. However, the application of the Cr.P.C. will be excluded only where a special law prescribes special procedures to be dealt with in the investigation, inquiry or the trial of the special offence. As already discussed above, in the present case, misappropriation of contribution to the EPF and ESI has been made punishable under Section 406 of IPC as well, in view of Explanation-I and Explanation-II of Section 405 of IPC, which defines criminal breach of trust.

Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 1785 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Saumindra Bhattacharya vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 10 September, 2009

In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon judgment dated 11.09.2015 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-29708-2014 titled Ajay Kumar Sandhu Vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M-15719-2005 titled 'Dhan Raj Jain and another Vs. State of Haryana and another', judgment of Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2039 of 2012 titled 'Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and another', Criminal Appeal No.179 of 2008 titled 'Suresh Nanda Vs. C.B.I', Criminal Appeal No.1133, 1134 of 2009 titled 'Jeewan Kumar Raut Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation', Criminal Appeal No.569 of 2003 titled 'Saumindra Bhattacharya Vs. State of Bihar and another' and Privy Council Appeal No.11 of 1936 titled 'Nazir Ahmad Vs. King Emperor'.

Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search