Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)
State vs . Inder Sharma on 24 January, 2020 cites

State Through Central Bureau Of ... vs Inder Kumar Sharma on 19 November, 2009

6. The PW­1 Ashok Kumar (complainant) was cross­examined by Sh. N.K. Kaushik Ld. counsel for the accused Inder Sharma. In his cross­ examination, he admitted that his complaint given to the SHO written in Hindi language was not on record. He also admitted that his complaint given in the court was not signed and he stated that the same was filed by his advocate. He further admitted that he was known to the accused Inder Sharma for the past State vs. Inder Sharma FIR No. 341/05 PS Adarsh Nagar Page 3 of 7 4­5 years before the present complaint. That no dispute was pending between him and the accused before the filing of this case. He never visited Assam during the investigation of the case. IO did not seize any bill / bilti / challan in his presence from the accused. He made payment to the accused Inder Sharma at the instance of Kishan Bhatani. That he gave money to the accused Kishan Ghatani after having conversation with the accused Inder Sharma. That the money was physically handed over to one Deepak at the instance of Kishan Ghatani. He further admitted that the 'Rs. 10 note' was signed by Deepak and not by the accused Inder Sharma. That he did not obtain any call record of the conversation which took place between him and the accused Inder Sharma over phone. He also admitted that he never met the accused Inder Sharma during the said transaction. That he did not file any civil suit against the accused Inder Sharma. He stated that he had mentioned in his ITR of the relevant time regarding the transaction between him and the accused Inder Sharma, but, the copy of the same was not placed on record.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - I Kaur - Full Document

State Of Haryana vs Suresh Chander Sharma(D) Thr. Lrs. on 4 December, 2019

He was asked to make payment to that person on receipt of Rs. 10 note and after confirmation from the accused Inder Sharma on phone. He was also told the mobile number of Kishan Ghatani. On 24.02.2005, he contacted Kishan Ghatani on phone and he was told that Kishan Ghatani is sending one person namely Deepak along with the said 10 Rs. Note. He was directed to make the payment State vs. Inder Sharma FIR No. 341/05 PS Adarsh Nagar Page 2 of 7 of Rs. 2,80,000/­ to Deepak. On 24.02.2005 Deepak came at his shop and presented the Rs. 10 note bearing the same number as was mentioned by the accused Inder Kumar and after confirmation over phone from the accused Inder he gave Rs. 2,80,000/­ to Deepak. He kept the note with him. He was told that the goods would be delivered to him in 6­7 days. On the basis of trust and good faith as shown by the accused Inder he gave money to the Deepak. After that day, he was in regular touch with the accused Inder who repeated that he had loaded his consignment in a truck and also mentioned the number of the truck to the complainant when the goods did not reach him after one month he insisted the accused Inder to send the bilti of the truck in which the goods were loaded. The same was sent to him by the accused Inder by fax. The accused Inder neither sent the goods nor gave his money back. Upon his complaint to Ld. ACMM, the FIR of the present case was registered. During the investigation of the case, he handed over the 'Rs. 10 note' and one diary page bearing the entry regarding the deal with the accused to the IO of the case. He proved the seizure memos regarding them as Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B both bearing his signatures. He identified the bilty as Ex. P1 and the diary page Ex. P2. The 'Rs. 10 note' containing the name of V.K. Sharma, amount of payment of Rs. 2,80,000/­ and one phone number and containing some other details were produced in the court.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1