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

2022 Supreme(MP) 119

RAVI MALIMATH, VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
Deepali Jadhav – Appellant
Versus
The State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Piyush Mathur with Yash Tiwari for applicant;
Vaibhav Jainfor non-applicant No.1.

ORDER

1. The present criminal revision has been filed under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the order dated 10.3.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, whereby he has denied the protection to the present applicant under Judges Protection Act, 1884 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1884’).

2. By the impugned order, the charges for offences under section 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 120-B and 169 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 have been framed against the present applicant and further the applicant has also challenged the sanction order dated 26.12.2018 passed by the State Government.

3. As per prosecution story, one Nathulal S/o Rugga Ji Balai (hereinafter, the borrower) had taken a loan of Rs.4.95 lakhs for purchasing a tractor against his agricultural land at Village-Bhamora, District - Ujjain (MP) bearing survey no.216 admeasuring 5.92 hectare from Punjab National Bank, Branch Kanthal, Ujjain (hereinafter, the lending bank) in the year 2004. The said borrower was unable to repay the loan amount and hence the lending bank on account of non-payment

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