Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Hitesh V. Shah – Appellant
Versus
Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Heard Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-CBI.
2. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 28.11.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in FIR No. RC08(A)/2017-R dated 30.10.2017, whereby, the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI-cum-Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi.
3. The FIR was registered alleging therein that the information has been received by the Officer-in-Charge i.e. Superintendent of Police/HOB C.B.I, ACB Ranchi as stated therein that informant has received information through reliable sources to the effect that Sri Upendra Nath Mandal, while posted and functioning as Senior Manager, Metallurgical Wing of MECON Ltd. entered into criminal conspiracy with the proprietors o
Illegal gratification – In a case where investigation is completed, Court is not required to appreciate evidence for quashing criminal proceeding – To appreciate evidence is function of Criminal Cour....
At the stage of considering charges, the accused cannot rely on materials by way of defense, and the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used for a mini trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that at the stage of consideration of charge, an accused cannot rely on materials by way of defense, and the power under Section 482 of the Code of....
The absence of evidence proving demand for illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act led to the quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Charges under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act require a substantive offence to be present and can be altered by the court before judgment, according to legal precedents.
The court ruled that allegations in an FIR must disclose a prima facie case for investigation, and mere recovery of cash without evidence linking the accused to a bribery transaction does not suffice....
At the stage of framing the charge, the truth, veracity, and effect of the evidence proposed by the prosecutor are not meticulously judged.
Scrap dealer not liable under Sections 411/120-B IPC for purchasing scrap from attached premises pursuant to custodian permission and cheque payment, absent knowledge of theft or conspiracy; FIR quas....
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
