Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 39 (0.36 seconds)
Mulki Suryanarayanrao Rau And Another vs Gurushant Gangadhar Kamble And Others on 5 January, 1987
cites
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Section 9 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Lennart Schussler And Anr vs Director Of Enforcement & Anr on 14 October, 1969
And so long as the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in Mohd. Hussain Umar Kochra v. K. S. Dalipsinghji, 1970 Cri LJ 9 and Lennart Schussler v. Director of Enforcement, 1970 Cri LJ 707 are concerned. I do not think they can be of much help to Mr. Desai for the simple reason that the direct as well as circumstantial evidence pointing out to the positive facts of agreement of conspiracy may be well adduced at the time of trial. All that has to be seen now is, whether the material mentioned in the complaint discloses or not that there are circumstances suggesting pre-arranged meeting of minds among the accused persons to do certain illegal acts or legal acts by illegal means. I am of the view that so long as the complaint in our case is concerned, there is enough material on the record to suggest criminal conspiracy on the part of the accused persons.
Mohd. Hussain Umar Kochra Etc vs K. S. Dalipsinghji & Anr., Etc on 31 March, 1969
And so long as the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in Mohd. Hussain Umar Kochra v. K. S. Dalipsinghji, 1970 Cri LJ 9 and Lennart Schussler v. Director of Enforcement, 1970 Cri LJ 707 are concerned. I do not think they can be of much help to Mr. Desai for the simple reason that the direct as well as circumstantial evidence pointing out to the positive facts of agreement of conspiracy may be well adduced at the time of trial. All that has to be seen now is, whether the material mentioned in the complaint discloses or not that there are circumstances suggesting pre-arranged meeting of minds among the accused persons to do certain illegal acts or legal acts by illegal means. I am of the view that so long as the complaint in our case is concerned, there is enough material on the record to suggest criminal conspiracy on the part of the accused persons.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Purshotam Dass Jhunjunwala And Others on 1 December, 1982
35. Mr. Samant strongly relied upon the observations made in Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, , Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Purshotam Dass Jhunjhunwala, and J. P. Sharma v. Vinod Kumar Jain , on this aspect of the matter. He submitted that on the basis of the averments made in the complaint, process was issued and the rest is a matter of evidence that would be adduced when the trial begins. He further submitted that the drift and the tenor of the complaint read as a whole would show that the complaint is based on the result of investigation which points out that the present accused persons were in league with the Company in the matter of evasion of excise duty. He drew my attention to a paragraph from the case or Ram Kishan Rohtagi, that :
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ram Kishan Rohtagi And Others on 1 December, 1982
14. Now, in the case of Ram Kishan, , it was held that there were no clear allegations against the Directors that they were responsible for the conduct of business and, therefore, the proceedings came to be quashed against them but not against the Manager. It is true that in that case the Directors were sought to be punished for the act of food adulteration holding that they were responsible for the conduct of the business of their capacity as Directors as such. But it is important to note that in our case, as submitted by Mr. Samant, the present accused persons are not sought to be punished only because they are Directors but on account of their complicity in the commission of the alleged offences. In the case of Purshotam Dass Jhunjhunwala, it was held by the Supreme Court that it was a case where facts were almost identical with the facts of the case , but with a vital difference that unlike in the other case, para.