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

1992 Supreme(MP) 536

Shacheendra Dwivedi, J.
Abdul Rashid Khan v. State of M.P.
Misc. Cr. Case No. 814 of 1992 (J); Decided on 27.8.1992 .

Advocates:
Kamruddin for applicant; Paliwal, Deputy Advocate General for State.

Headnote:(1) Criminal P .C., 1973 -- Ss. 438 and 439 -- Sessions Court and High Court have concurrent jurisdiction -- Sessions Court should be approached first.

        (2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 439 -- offence under S. 409 I.P.C. - - accused in government service -- bail granted.

        ¼1½ naM Áfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 438 rFkk 439 && ls‘ku U;k;ky; vkSj mPp U;k;ky; dks leorhZ vf/kdkfjrk gS && igys ls‘ku U;k;ky; igq¡puk pkfg,A

        ¼2½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 439 && Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 409 ds v/khu vijk/k && vijk/kh ljdkjh lsok esa && tekur eatwj dh xbZA

JUDGMNET

This petition has been filed directly in this Court. Although this Court has the concurrent jurisdiction with the Sessions Court under section 438 and 439 Cr.P.C. yet the petitioner ought to have approached the Court of first instance, which could have examined the facto; and passed a suitable order and may be that in case the petitioner was not required to apply to this Court. Since this petition has been admitted for final hearing, the parties are heard.

The allegations against the petitioner are that while he was posted Upvan Khetrapal certain quantities of edible oil and peas were misappropriated by him. The petitioner's case is that the properties were given in the charge of one Shri Ali by him and the receipt thereof was passed. A photo copy thereof is in the case diary and the original with the petitioner. But the prosecution case is that the receipt is forged and the person signing has denied to have passed such a receipt. The case is still at the stage of investigation. The petitioner is still serving the Government.

In the circumstances, it is directed that the petitioner, in the event of his arrest, shall be enlarged on bail by the Police Officer arresting him on his furnishing personal bond and bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to his satisfaction on a condition that the petitioner shall make himself available as and when required by the investigating officer and shall cooperate in the investigation of the offence. Any breach of these conditions shall be taken as the breach of the bail order. This order shall be liable to be cancelled.



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 Back to top