SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(SC) 90

P.N.SHINGHAL, S.MURTAZA FAZAL ALI
Surinder Mohan Vikal – Appellant
Versus
Ascharaj Lal Chopra – Respondent


Advocates:
B.M.SRIVASTAVA, D.MUKHERJI, S.C.AGRAWAL, S.C.PATEL, SARVA M.MITTER, SVARAJ KAUSHAL

JUDGMENT

P. N. SHINGHAL J. :— This appeal by special leave has been filed by accused Surinder Mohan Vikal against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated March 2, 1977, rejecting his application for revision of the Magistrates order dated Sept. 15, 1976 summoning him as an accused for the trial of an offence under S. 500 I.P.C. at the instance of respondent Ascharaj Lal Chopra.

2. The appellant challenged the Magistrates order for two reasons, but the controversy before us refers to his claim that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence under S. 500 I.P.C. as the period of limitation prescribed by S. 468 of the Cr. P.C. had expired. The controversy thus relates to a short point of law and can well be examined on the basis of the admitted facts.

3. The appellant was working as General Secretary of the Central Bank of India Employees Union, Punjab Ludhiana, which was a registered body. The respondent was employed as Special Assistant in that Bank, and one Amreek Singh was employed there as a clerk. The respondent worked as the General Secretary of the Union while Amreek Singh worked as its Treasurer before the appellant took over as General Secretary. Th




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top