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

2010 Supreme(Guj) 126

Jayant Patel
Dipakbhai L. Patel – Appellant
Versus
Firoj Rustamji Bhadra – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Nanavati, J.B. Pardiwala, K.P. Raval

JUDGMENT

1. The short facts of this case appears to be that the respondent no. 1 filed private complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari against the petitioner, who was at the relevant point of time, the Manager of Bank of India, Vijalpore Branch, and the petitioner was holding the post of Cashier In-charge of the Bank. The accusation in the complaint is that the petitioner had proceeded on leave and thereafter he wanted to assume the duty but the same was not permitted by the Manager of the Bank without production of the medical fitness certificate. As per the complainant, production of medical certificate was not required but the Manager insisted for such certificate and as stated in the complaint, he insisted under the instructions of the higher authority. Therefore, as per the complainant, he was wrongfully restrained, therefore, the offence under sec. 341 of IPC was committed by the petitioner -accused hence, the complaint was filed.

2. Learned Magistrate directed for holding the inquiry under sec. 202 of CrPC through police and the report thereafter was submitted before the learned Magistrate. After considering the report, the learned Magistrate found tha














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