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

1994 Supreme(Cal) 290

NISITH KUMAR BATABYAL
SUBRTAPATRA – Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT – Respondent


NISITH KUMAR BATBYAL, J.

( 1 ) TWENTY-ONE Criminal Revisional Application involving common question of law have been taken up together for orders here. 1a. In Criminal Revision No. 434, of 1994 (Baidyanath Bose and others v. State), the peti tioner No. 1 is the Branch Manager of Hooghly District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. , Haripal Branch. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are Cultivators. Other petitioners are doing various works. On 8 -4-1983 the Chief Accountant of Hooghly District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. lodged a com plaint at Chinsurah P. S. to the effect that the petitioner No. 2 along with the other petitioners committed cheating in respect of a huge sum of money by way of criminal conspiracy and forg ery of documents. Accordingly, Chinsurah P. S. Case No. 4. dated 8-4-83 was started under Sections 468/420/120b of the IPC The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by the High Court and some of them surrendered before the Ld. SDJM of 17-6-83 and the rest on 25-6-83. The final report was submitted on 28-2-90. There was a protest-petition filed by the de-facto complain ant. Ultimately the final report was not accepted and the Learned Magistrate directed re-investi gation.



























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