Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.30 seconds)
K.V. Kathrani And Ors. vs Delhi Administration on 19 March, 1985 cites

Bhiku Ram Jain Etc. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors. on 9 February, 1977

The question as to how far such an averment in a complaint is sufficient to warrant an order for summoning the partners of the firm came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case Shri Bhiku Ram Jain and others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. 1977 (1) Fac 226. In that case it was stated in the complaint that all the accused persons mentioned at Sr. Nos. 5 to 17 were the directors of the accused No. 3 and all of them were in-charge-of and responsible for the conduct of the business of accused No. 3 at the time of the commission of the offence. In that case also the complainant was not examined, being a public servant and on the basis of that averment in the complaint the learned Magistrate had directed the issuance of summons against the directors of the company. The Bench observed as below :- "In the instant case the complainant was not examined being a public servant. The complaint on the face of it does no disclose that the petitioners were in overall control of the day-to-day business of the company. The Magistrate in the circumstances ought, to have inquired into the case for the purpose of deciding whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceedings an envisaged by section 202 of the Code. That having not been done, on a bare perusal of the complaint the impugned order cannot be sustained. We are unable to support the contention sought to be urged on behalf of the Corporation that because the complainant is a public servant and the complaint is in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and witnesses when the public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties has made the complaint. Examination of the complainant in such a case is to be dispensed with only if a perusal of the complaint prima facie makes out a case for proceeding against the accused. It cannot be said that when a complaint is bereft of material from which it is sought to be urged that prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused the complainant should not be examined when he files a complaint in his capacity as a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of this official duties."
Delhi High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ram Kishan Rohtagi And Others on 1 December, 1982

(6) The Supreme Court maintained the order of the High Court in so far as it had quashed the proceedings against the directors of the company. It was observed in that case that if the prosecution can at any stage produce evidence which satisfied the court that the other accused or those who had not been arrayed as accused and against whom proceedings had been quashed had also committed the offence, the court can take cognizance against them and try them along with the other accused. Following these authorities I hold that the averments as made by the complainant in the complaint were not a sufficient materials on which it could be held that there was a sufficient ground for proceeding against those persons for the offence in question, so as to issue process against them as contemplated by Section 204 Cr. P.C. I accordingly accept the petition, set aside, the impugned order of the learned Magistrate summoning accused Nos. 7 to 12 and 15 to 17. It is, however, clarified that it shall be open to the complainant to give his statement in the court and to lead evidence and if at a later stage from the material as adduced on the record it prima facie stands proved on the record that any of these accused was in-charge-of and in control of the day-to-day affairs of the Company of which he was a director (Partner), the learned Magistrate may then summon such person to stand trial in the case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 852 - S M Ali - Full Document
1