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

1996 Supreme(All) 517

C.A.RAHIM
MAHANDRA SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Muzhat Parveen,

C. A. RAHIM, J.

Heard learned counsel. The applicant has filed this application to quash the charge-sheet dated 4-1- 1996 and the entire pro ceeding in case No. 162 of 1994 pending in the Court of II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.

2. The allegation is that the complainant entrusted Rs. 50,000 to the applicant at Manu Steel Factory at noon on 14-3-1994 for handing it over to their another factory at Ambala but the applicant did not hand over the money at Ambala Factory for which a first information report was lodged. After investigation a charge-sheet under Section 406, I. P. C. has been framed.

3. The learned counsel has alleged the charge sheet on two grounds firstly, that the said money was handed over (returned) at the Hauz. Qazi, Head Office of the informant just after reaching there because of some confusion regarding the place and person to whom the said money had to be handed over.

4. In paragraph 9 it has been stated that the supplementary report called by the A. G. A. supports the contention of the applicant. Annexure 3 is the report dated 9-2-1995, wherein it has been stated that:

". . . . . . . . However, the I. O. recorded a supplementary report stating














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