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

2004 Supreme(SC) 1590

B.P.SINGH, ARUN KUMAR
State Of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Surendra Kumar – Respondent


Judgment

B.P. Singh, J.—The application for intervention is refused.

2. The State of U.P., the appellant herein has impugned the order passed by a learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court dated 20th September, 2002 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 4909 of 2002. The learned Judge, – by his aforesaid order, modified his earlier order passed on 21.5.2002 which was an order passed on an application filed by the respondent under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

3. The facts of the case are that the respondent Surendra Kumar is a partner of a firm which has been appointed as the City Booking Agent of the Northern Railways having its office in Kanpur. It appears that the Sales Tax Officer seized certain goods from the aforesaid city booking office of the respondent and in connection therewith a proceeding was initiated which was pending before the Court of the First ACJM, Kanpur. A criminal case was registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, 481, 482 and 120B I.P.C. but it is not in dispute that the respondent is not an accused in that case which is against unknown persons. A prayer was made before the learned ACJM for release of the goods seized by the Sales Tax authorities. After considering 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