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

2004 Supreme(All) 838

I.M.QUDDUSI
DHARMENDRA DEO MISHRA – Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
G.S.MAJELA, Girdhar Nath, K.M.TULIKA PRAKASH, P.P.SRIVASTAV, SHARAD SRIVASTAVA

I. M. QUDDUSI, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P. P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate and Sri G. S. Hajela learned Standing counsel for the CBI.

( 2 ) IN this case a counter-affidavit was filed by earlier standing counsel of CBI Sri giridhar Nath, which is on record. However, this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed annexing the documents and the orders of the learned Court below and as such this Court is to see whether the chargesheet filed by the CBI in the Court of the magistrate was proper or not and hence for that purpose no counter affidavit was required at all.

( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the applicant-petitioner, while he was posted as vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development authority, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as g. D. A. ) in pursuance of the resolution dated 22-4-1983 put an application personally to Sri S. K. Goswami, I. A. S. Commissioner, meerut Division, Meerut, the then chairman G. D. A. for allotment of a plot in surya Nagar/chandra Nagar colony in pursuance of the resolution dated 22-4-83, by means of which the G. D. A. agreed to a proposal that certain plots of uneven sizes, for which there was no public deman




















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