Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.29 seconds)Mr.Panchabhai Popotbhai Butani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 December, 2009
Full Bench of this Court in Mr. Panchabhai Popatbhai Butani
vs. State of Maharashtra ,supra, has rejected the contention
that person against whom FIR is registered consequent to such
S.156(3) direction is not entitled to assail direction issued
erroneously. Whether RCC 49/2009 is within limitation or not,
whether there is going to be a second FIR or then offences
disclosed are distinct or pertain to some other period and have
no bearing on FIR 118 or then, facts warrant registration of an
independent FIR, whether loose papers can have any evidentiary
value, are all questions which can not be answered effectively at
this stage and must wait till stage appropriate for its
determination is reached. Question whether documents on
record make out a case for investigation under S.156(3) Cr. P.C.
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:56 :::
apl412.12 28
or then, RCC 49/2009 needs to be taken up for verification is the
issue which must first be answered by the Trial Court.
Section 154 in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Section 156 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Shri Shyamsunder Radheshyam Agarwal vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 February, 2013
The Division Bench
of this Court in Shri Shyamsunder Radhyeshyam Agrwal vs.
State of Maharashtra, (supra) has on 8.2.2013, concluded that
the Magistrate has discretion whether to order inquiry under S.
156(3) or then to proceed under S. 200 Cr. P.C. Magistrate there
after perusal of complaint and documents and after hearing the
Counsel for complainant, did not find it necessary to proceed
under S.156(3). This Division Bench has in para 15 of the
judgment observed that powers of Magistrate while passing an
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 :::
apl412.12 21
order a complaint, cannot restricted to prayer made in the
complaint and he can exercise judicial discretion as per law in
consonance with the material on record. Another Division Bench
at Nagpur has on 2.7.2013 decided Cr. Application No. 258 of
2013.
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Manharbhai Muljibhai Kakadia And Anr. vs Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel And 2 Ors. on 26 August, 2005
In Manharibahi Muljibhai Kakadia vs.
Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel (Supra), the Hon. 3 Judges of
The Apex Court have held that a Magistrate ordering
investigation after perusal of complaint can not be said not to
have taken cognizance. Order of CJM dated 18.6.2004 there
read - "on perusing the complaint and the accompanying
documents, in the said matter it is necessary to take into custody
the documents mentioned in the complaint. It is necessary to find
out the persons who have forged the signatures on such documents,
and record their statements, and to compare the said signatures
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 :::
apl412.12 22
with the signatures of the family members of the complainant, and
in this regard obtain the opinion from the handwriting expert, in
view of all this such investigations cannot be done by the Court, in
view of this fact below Section 156(3) Cr. P.C in the matter of the
said complaint for police investigations it is hereby ordered to send
the said inquiry to the PI, Umra Police Station. And, he is ordered
to investigate thoroughly in this matter and within 30 days present
the report before this Court". Hon. Apex Court concluded that
there remained no doubt that on 18.6.2004, CJM had taken
cognizance although he postponed issue of process by directing
an investigation to be made by the police officer. The submission
of the learned counsel for Respondent 1 that the CJM had not
taken cognizance in the matter and the complaint was dismissed
under Section 203 at the pre-cognizance stage was rejected.
The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs V.C. Shukla & Ors on 2 March, 1998
(II) On use of loose papers, learned Counsel states
that AIR 1998 SC 1406 - Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V.C.
Shukla considers the use of loose documents and the concept of
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 :::
apl412.12 10
presumption about account books when charge was being
framed. Here, the loose papers in handwriting of Prabhakar
prima-facie revealed manipulations and fabricated accounts. The
audit-inquiry and report which lead to FIR 118 overlook these
documents. Report submitted by Shri Mehandale after inspection
on 28 and 30th August,1997 as also report of the auditor
forwarded with letter dated 21.12.1997 show the guilt of
Applicants.