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

2000 Supreme(MP) 1078

S.C.PANDEY
Arun Kumar Bhargava – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Adv.
For State: Shri H. Agnihotri, Panel Lawyer

ORDER

S.C. Pandey, J.

1. The petitioner is the head of the Department of Personnel Management in a public limited company, namely, C.G. Elin Power System Ltd. Initially the case against the petitioner was that on 10-9-99 two motor vehicles were requisitioned from him for the purpose of election of Lok Sahha. As per the allegation, he did not comply with the order and for this reason initially a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner by the police under Section 186, IPC and Sections 134 and 167 of the Representation of the People Act (for short "the Act"). At that time the case was pending in the Court of JMFC, Goharganj, District Raisen and was registered as R.T. No. 22/2000. This Court by order dated 4-7-2000 held that the charge-sheet filed by the police under Section 186, IPC and under Section 134 of the Act was liable to be quashed for the reason prima facie no offence was made out. However, this Court held that so far as offence under Section 167 of the Act is concerned, the charge was made out prima fade. The petition earlier filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. was partly allowed. It was held that the proceedings for offence punishable under Section 167 of the Act shall co









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