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 Upholds Order Restoring Cognizance, Emphasizes Admissibility of Evidence</h1> <h3>Helios and Matheson Information Technology Ltd. and Ors. Versus Rajeev Sawhney and Ors.</h3> Helios and Matheson Information Technology Ltd. and Ors. Versus Rajeev Sawhney and Ors. - (2012) 1 SCC 699 Issues Involved:1. Legality of the High Court's order setting aside the Additional Sessions Judge's decision.2. Allegations of conspiracy and fraud.3. Suppression of facts by the complainant.4. Compliance with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.5. Admissibility and consideration of documents at the revisional stage.Summary:1. Legality of the High Court's Order:The Supreme Court examined the Special Leave Petitions challenging the High Court's order dated 6th May 2011, which set aside the Additional Sessions Judge's decision and restored the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate taking cognizance of offences allegedly committed by the Petitioners. The High Court concluded that the Additional Sessions Judge erred in setting aside the summoning order based on a photocopy of a document produced at the revisional stage.2. Allegations of Conspiracy and Fraud:The complainant, Respondent No. 1, filed a criminal complaint alleging offences u/s 417, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of IPC, claiming the Petitioners conspired to defraud him. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance and issued process against the accused. The Additional Sessions Judge initially set aside this order, concluding that the alleged fraud was ratified in a subsequent meeting on 19th July 2005.3. Suppression of Facts by the Complainant:The Additional Sessions Judge found fault with the complainant for allegedly suppressing the fact of a complaint filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore. However, the High Court noted that the Bangalore complaint had been quashed by the Karnataka High Court, and thus, there was no suppression of material information.4. Compliance with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:The High Court held that the provisions of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were complied with by the Magistrate while taking cognizance and issuing process. The Additional Sessions Judge's contrary conclusion was found to be erroneous.5. Admissibility and Consideration of Documents at the Revisional Stage:The High Court criticized the Additional Sessions Judge for relying on a photocopy of the minutes of the meeting dated 19th July 2005, which was produced for the first time at the revisional stage. The High Court emphasized that such documents could not be considered without proper proof and verification of their genuineness. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the accused could not introduce documents at the revisional stage unless they were of unimpeachable character and legally admissible.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, affirming the High Court's order. The Court reiterated that the complainant's allegations, if taken at face value, made out a prima facie case against the accused, justifying the issuance of process by the Magistrate. The Court also emphasized that the accused could present their defense and relevant documents at the proper stage during the trial.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
