Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.72 seconds)
Sevasingh S/O. Pyarasingh Kalra vs Central Bureau Of Investigation Thr. ... on 8 January, 2021
cites
T. Barai vs Henry Ah Hoe And Another on 7 December, 1982
(34) Although initially an argument was sought to
be made in view of the amendment of Section 13(1) of the said
Act, the said argument was not pressed in the written submission,
in the face of the admitted position of law. But, even the other
argument raised on behalf of the said applicants that they need to
be given advantage of the rule of beneficial construction, can also
not be accepted. This Court is of the opinion that reliance placed
on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.Barai
vs. Henry (supra) is also misplaced. This is because in the said
judgment itself the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that the
rule of beneficial construction will not apply where the essential
ingredients of the two offences are different. In this context a
perusal of Section 13(1)(d) of the said Act i.e. the offence for
which the applicants are sought to be charged, would show that
the ingredients of the same are different from ingredients of the
offence in the amended Section 13(1) of the said Act. Therefore,
there is no question of applicability of the rule of beneficial
construction in favour of the applicants before this court.
Union Of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr on 6 November, 1978
The
above quoted principles laid down in the case of Union of India vs.
Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra) were also relied upon.
(23) In view of the above position of law reiterated
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it needs to be examined whether
applying the aforesaid principles, it can be said that the Court
below in the present case committed an error in rejecting the
applications for discharge filed on behalf of the applicants. It has
been specifically contended on behalf of the applicants before this
Court that even if the material that has come on record with the
charge-sheet is accepted as it is, there is no reason why the
applicants should be made to face trial. In other words, the
applicants have boldly contended that there is total absence of any
material to raise even a suspicion against them and that therefore,
the applications for discharge ought to have been allowed.
(24) In this context it would become necessary to
now appreciate the material brought on record along with the
charge-sheet. The basic case of the respondent appears to be that
the officials of the said plant, who are applicants in Criminal
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 04:48:57 :::
20 / 30 Judgment REVN 208, 209 & 214.2016.odt
Revision Application No.214/2016, conspired with the suppliers of
coal/successful bidders i.e. applicants in Criminal Revision
Application No.208/2016 and 209/2016, to cause financial loss
to the aforesaid plant and that such activity on their part
constituted the ingredients of the offence under Section 13(1)(d)
of the aforesaid Act. A perusal of the aforesaid provision would
show that on the basis of material available on record, the relevant
offence would be Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the said Act, insofar as
the officials of the said plant are concerned and the suppliers
would be concerned with Section 120-B of the IPC.
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of M.P vs Sheetla Sahai & Ors on 4 August, 2009
The case of State of M.P. vs. Sheetala Sahai (supra), has been
relied upon by both the parties. On behalf of the applicants
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 04:48:57 :::
18 / 30 Judgment REVN 208, 209 & 214.2016.odt
emphasis has been placed on para 34 of the said judgment,
wherein it is stated that a mere error of judgment in a collective
decision ought not to be a ground to proceed for trial while
considering an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the said Act.
The respondent has relied upon said judgment by emphasizing
upon paragraph 51, which indicates that the tests at the stage of
framing of charge and while recording conviction are completely
different and that the Court must bear this in mind.
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt.Ltd vs Sanjay Choudhary & Ors on 3 October, 2008
(21) In the case of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Sanjay Choudhary and others (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court referred to Sections 227, 239 and 245 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure and held that the Court has to apply its
mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for
presuming the commission of offence by the accused and to see
while considering such a question as to whether the material
brought on record could reasonably connect the accused with the
trial.
Asian Resurfacing Of Road Agency P. Ltd. vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 28 March, 2018
(35) In fact, the learned counsel for the respondent
is justified in relying upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of Satyanarayan Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan
(supra) and Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation(supra), wherein much emphasis
has been placed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the need for
expedited trials concerning offences under Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has come down
heavily on stay of trials, pending challenge to orders dismissing
applications for discharge. In the present case it is found that the
applicants have been enjoying interim order of stay of proceedings
before the Trial Court since the year 2016, till this Court took up
the applications for final hearing and disposal. The trial has
remained stayed for better part of four years and since this Court
has found that there is no substance in the contentions raised on
behalf of the applicants, appropriate directions need to be given,
while holding against the applicants.