Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.23 seconds)
Hitesh Gordhanbhai Gorasiya @ Hitesh ... vs State Of Gujarat on 21 November, 2025 cites

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union Of India on 27 July, 2022

5. Learned Advocate Mr.Rajesh Kanani and Learned APP Mr.Utkarsh Sharma would submit that the trial Court has passed well-reasoned order and having found a strong prima facie case against the present applicants and having found sufficient grounds to proceed with the trial and frame the charge has correctly rejected application Exh-36. Under the circumstances, the applicant having failed to point out any illegality or irregularity committed by the trial Court apparent on the face of the record, hence no interfere is required at the hands of this Court and has argued to reject the present applications. It is further stated that, no roving inquiry is permitted while framing of the charge and the Court can only rely on the chargesheet papers and no other material can be considered and having found ample material to arraign the present applicants as accused has correctly passed the impugned order, though the case may not strictly fall under the Scheduled Act, as held in the case of Vijay MadanLal Chaudhary Vs. Union of India SCC 1 SC929. The application of the present applicants came to be rejected by the trial Court after having found that there are no compelling legal grounds in application Page 12 of 22 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1879/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined Exh-36, and thus, it is argued that the trial Court has found that the Enforcement Directorate has a strong prima facie case from the papers of the chargesheet and having found sufficient evidence collected by them for framing of charge, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application, more particularly, when the applicants have failed to prove to give any satisfactory reasons or explanations regarding the property alleged to have been purchased from the proceeds of crime money. Under the circumstances, has argued to reject the present application.
Supreme Court of India Cites 580 - Cited by 293 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document
1   2 Next