trial of the case was excepted to commence on 27-12-2004 and the trial was to be conducted in an in camera form ... trial in the private chamber of the Trial Court. But the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was rejected and the Trial Court
brief facts of the case are as under:
The revision petitioner faced trial in CC
No.1686/2010 for the offence punishable under Section ... charge sheet was that the
accused has stolen away a Video Camera worth
Rs.45,000/- on the intervening night
damage to the CCTV Camera by the
two persons who were named by the petitioner in his complaint.
5. Ld trial court dismissed the application ... then the
learned trial court had given opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter,
learned trial court issued notice to the complainant and after recording
statement
From perusal of trial court record as well as the order of Ld
Trial Court dated 31.07.2013, it is categorically clear that at the
time ... revisionist. It is specifically mentioned in the order by
Ld Trial Court that camera was seized from the possession of
accused/ revisionist and photographs
stereo in 2013. It is submitted that Ld trial court failed to appreciate that CCTV
Camera was installed by the petitioner to have surveillance ... trial court as proximity between the theft of car stereo in the year
2013 and tampering of CCTV camera by the alleged accused
camera belonging to the complainant
Sangeeta and disposed off/destroyed as well as comitted mischief by
causing wrongful loss/damage to the CCTV camera ... CCTV
camera of the complainant.
I have carefully gone through the material available on record.
A successful prosecution of a criminal trial largely depends
accused
persons obtained Rs.5.00 lakh, they did not
supply the camera etc and they supplied the
defective articles. This sale – purchase was
conducted ... facts of the payment and supply are
now disputed and the trial of Crime No.24/12 is
pending in the competent Court. Therefore
prosecution claims to have verified the footage of
C.C.TV camera installed at the Exhibition site and found some of the
accused near ... December, 2010. Since the petitioners were more than
convinced that the trial of the case would take quite some time, and the
petitioners, being foreign
such offence
and not before that. However, in the present case learned
trial Court cannot take cognizance on basis of FIR and the
Charge-sheet ... carried
out and for carrying out this sting operation, a hidden
camera was installed on the dress of the decoy patient. She
has submitted that
accused
persons obtained Rs.5.00 lakh, they did not supply the
camera etc and they supplied the defective articles. This
sale – purchase was conducted ... facts of
the payment and supply are now disputed and the trial of
Crime No.24/12 is pending in the competent Court.
Therefore
