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

2000 Supreme(SC) 16

M.B.SHAH, K.T.THOMAS
MAHESH KUMAR BHAWSINGHKA – Appellant
Versus
State Of Delhi – Respondent


Judgment

K. T. THOMAS, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THE appellant is now facing prosecution alongwith another person for offences under Sections 120-B, 468 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code besides some other offences. The amount alleged to have been embezzled would have crossed the staggering mark of one crore had it been added with one more lakh of rupees. We stated this to highlight the magnitude of the offence involved. Mr. D. D. Thakur learned senior counsel contended that the fact that appellant was in jail for a long time is very germane in granting bail for offence of this nature.

( 3 ) THE motion for bail has been seriously opposed by the learned Additional Solicitor General and also learned counsel for the aggrieved party-Company. We find some force in the contention of both sides and therefore we adopt a via media as follows:

( 4 ) THE trial court shall commence taking evidence in this case within one month from today (if not already started) after fixing a schedule of postings from day-to-day and complete the trial before the expiry of three months from today. If the trial is not completed on or before the expiry of three months from today, we direct the trial judge to r

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