Back
S.R.PANDIAN, R.M.SAHAI
State Of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Budhikota Subbarao – Respondent
Yes, this judgement discusses the concept of fraud in the context of legal proceedings. It elaborates on the nature and effect of fraud, including how it can render proceedings null and void. The judgement also examines whether the pleadings and evidence in the case sufficiently established the presence of fraud.
However, regarding the specific issue of "locus" (which pertains to the jurisdiction or standing of a party to bring a matter before the court), the judgement does not explicitly address or analyze the concept of locus. The focus remains primarily on the legal definition and implications of fraud, as well as whether the allegations of fraud were adequately proven and legally sufficient to affect the proceedings.
In summary, the judgement discusses fraud extensively but does not explicitly discuss or analyze "locus" in this context.
JUDGMENT
R.M. Sahai, J. - The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is if the High Court was justified in allowing the application filed by the accused for declaring that the charges framed by the Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 24/27th July, 1990 were null and void as they were obtained by fraud, obtained by the State.
2. Merits or otherwise of the application, alleging fraud against the State, apart, what has left us completely surprised is not so much the entertaining of the application filed by the accused, for declaration that the charges framed against him were nullity having been procured by fraud as the procedure adopted by the learned Single Judge of granting the prayer merely for failure of the State to file any reply by way of counter-affidavit than by recording any finding that the State was guilty of procuring the order framing the charges by fraud. One of the objections raised by the State was that since the High Court by its order passed on 25/26th March, 1991 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 966 of 1990 had specifically held that the question of framing charge had become final, therefore, it could and not be re-opened, cannot be said to
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
