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

2004 Supreme(Del) 392

R.S.SODHI
SRICHAND P. HINDUJA – Appellant
Versus
STATE THROUGH CBI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AMIT DESAI, Arvind Kumar, N.K.MATTA, Navin Chawla, Nitesh Rana, U.A.RAMA, U.S.Prasad

R. S. SODHI, J

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 26. 3. 2004 of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi whereby the learned Magistrate vide that order framed charge under Section 120-B and Section 420 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC against the petitioners and also framed a charge under Section 465 IPC against M/s A. B. Bofors.

( 2 ) IT is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the judgment of the High Court in Crl. M. C. 3938/2003 as also the connected matters dated 04. 02. 2004 has categorically stated the conclusions that have emerged from the discussion in the judgment and has stated as under:

"to sum up following conclusions emerge from the aforesaid discussion - (i) Charges for the offences punishable under Sections 120b/420 IPC and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and Section 165a read with Section 161 IPC against the petitioners for having entered into a criminal conspiracy with the public servants to cheat the Government of India and having abetted the public servants to commit criminal misconduct by abusing their official position and taken illegal gratifi






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