Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, deserved quashing of the charge-sheet, cognizance order and consequential criminal proceedings on the ground that the materials did not disclose the alleged offences.
Analysis: The allegations, taken at face value, disclosed that the applicant, while functioning as an appellate authority, allegedly entertained and decided appeals outside jurisdiction, created or manipulated records, failed to follow the prescribed procedural requirements, and acted in concert with a co-accused, resulting in alleged wrongful loss to the revenue and corresponding wrongful gain. The material was found sufficient at this stage to indicate prima facie commission of offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating and offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court does not assess the sufficiency or reliability of evidence as if conducting a trial, and where the materials disclose a prima facie case, interference is not warranted.
Conclusion: The petition did not merit quashing and was rejected.