TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Reverses Discharge Order, Remands Case for Further Proceedings</h1> <h3>LEGAL REMEMBRANCER OF GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL Versus HARIDAS MUNDRA</h3> The Supreme Court allowed Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 1971, setting aside the previous judgment discharging the respondent and remanding the case for ... - Issues:Interpretation of s. 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in relation to the trial of the respondent for multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code.Analysis:The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court involved three appeals arising out of the same facts, all concerning the respondent, who was the managing director of a company under scrutiny for mismanagement. The High Court appointed a Special Officer to investigate the company's affairs, leading to the discovery of forged bills and embezzlement of funds. Subsequently, the Special Officer initiated legal proceedings resulting in charges against the respondent and his brother. During the trial, the Public Prosecutor sought amendments to the charges and withdrawal of prosecution against the brother. The trial judge, after hearing arguments, concluded that s. 195(1)(c) of the CrPC applied, thus lacking jurisdiction to proceed with the trial. The State challenged this decision through revision applications and appeals.The Supreme Court analyzed the applicability of s. 195(1)(c) in the context of the charges against the respondent. The section prohibits courts from taking cognizance of certain offenses without a written complaint from the concerned court. The respondent faced charges under ss. 418, 471, and 477A of the IPC. The Court determined that the offenses under ss. 418 and 477A were not covered by s. 195(1)(c) and did not require a written complaint. Regarding the offense under s. 471, which was charged against the respondent for using forged bills, the Court clarified the interpretation of s. 195(1)(c) based on previous judgments. It was established that the prohibition in s. 195(1)(c) applied only if the offense was committed by the party to the proceeding after becoming a party, not before. As the offense in question occurred before the respondent's involvement in the legal proceedings, s. 195(1)(c) did not apply. Moreover, the forged bills were not produced or used as evidence in the ongoing proceeding, further negating the application of s. 195(1)(c).Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 1971, setting aside the previous judgment discharging the respondent and remanding the case for further proceedings. The Court dismissed the other criminal appeals as they were no longer relevant based on the decision in the primary appeal. The City Sessions Court was directed to expedite the hearing due to the case's age and complexity.In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment clarified the interpretation of s. 195(1)(c) in the context of the charges against the respondent, ensuring that the legal proceedings could continue without the need for a written complaint from the Company Judge.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
