Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Bibhas Ranjan De
UBS Switzerland AG – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments regarding service of notice. (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 2. interpretation of section 105 crpc. (Para 10 , 12) |
| 3. discussion on interpretation of section 105 crpc. (Para 11) |
| 4. court's insight on procedural compliance and representation. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. conclusion on service requirement. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
Bibhas Ranjan De, J.
1. Petitioner/ UBS Switzerland AG lodged a complaint against the accused/ opposite party no. 2 to 7 herein before West Port Police Station on 28.03.2018 which was registered as West Port Police Station Case No. 88 of 2018 on an allegation that the petitioner pledged goods of over Rs. 55 crores which were delivered in Kolkata and those goods were misappropriated by the accused/opposite party no. 2 to 7 herein. At the time of granting anticipatory bail an amount of INR 10 crores was deposited by accused no. 2 to 4 and subsequently petitioner/defacto complainant was allowed to withdraw the said amount.
2. After successive investigation two closure reports were filed and the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore was pleased to set aside both the closure reports by directing further investigation. The order in respect of second closure report a
Statutory service requirements for notice in revisions do not mandate notification to parties outside India, allowing for procedural flexibility without prejudice.
The Investigating Agency must obtain concurrence from the Central Authority under Section 105(B)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before issuing summons in accordance with the Mutual Legal Assist....
A signatory of a cheque can be held liable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, and the dismissal of a complaint for want of prosecution does not bar the revisional court from correcting such orders.
No party having knowledge of the case can force the Court to first pass an ex parte order and then claim right to recall the same even when its bona fide is not proved.
The conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was erroneous as the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt, warranting interim relief for the applicants.
The court emphasized the necessity for the complainant to prove a legally enforceable debt in dishonor of cheque cases, allowing bail pending revision due to insufficient evidence.
The court held that the failure of the complainant to prove a legally enforceable debt justified the suspension of the applicant's sentence pending revision.
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
