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

1979 Supreme(Guj) 44

N.H.BHATT
DEEPAK DWARKADAS PATEL – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: A.J.PATEL, ASIM J.PANDYA, H.K.THAKORE

N. H. BHATT, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition raises an interesting and important question regarding the interpretation of clause (8) of sec. 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973

( 2 ) A few facts require to be slated:- on 12-9-77 one Mr. P. J. Sheth one of the engineers of the Gujarat Electricity Board lodged a first information report with Sabarmati Police Station alleging offences under sec. 417 42 165 468 471 201 and 114 of the I. P. Code. The allegation was that some capacitors rejected initially were sold to the Board because they were accompanied by the certificates of fitness which were ultimately found to be forged. In the F. I. R. these petitioners the proprietors of one concern were said to be the persons responsible for that forgery for the purpose of cheating the Gujarat Electricity Board. The PSI Mr. Gadhavi attached to the Sabarmati Police Station conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet under sec. 173 of the Cr. P. Code Mr. Gadhavi however mentioned these two persons as witnesses in the case and impleaded five persons as the accused. The learned Magistrate started examining the case for the purpose of deciding what charge should be framed and at the stage t








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