2009 (1) TMI 474

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ORDER 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Sanjay Sharma and M/s. Ocean Capital Limited through Sanjay Sharma, against the judgment/order of Special Judge (Fake Currency Notes Cases) Court Jaipur City whereby appeal filed by the petitioner No. 1 against the judgment dated 1-2-2002 of Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Court, Jaipur City was dismissed. 2. B....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ithin 60 days of the date of holding Annual General Meeting i.e., upto 25-5-1997 but the accused petitioners have not complied with the said provisions of the 1956 Act even after expiry of 1350 days and even after the reminders sent by the complainant and that the said act of the accused amounted to an offence under section 162 of the 1956 Act. On receiving the said complaint the Special Judicial ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....agistrate after hearing both the parties vide its judgment dated 1-2-2002 acquitted co-accused Ajay Sharma and Vijay Sharma of offence under section 162 of 1956 Act. The petitioners were convicted of the offence under section 162 of 1956 Act and sentence of fine of Rs. 450 was imposed against each of the petitioners. In default of payment of fine the petitioners were ordered to undergo simple impr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the complaint remained wholly unproved against the petitioners but the Courts below completely ignored this aspect of the case and arbitrarily convicted the accused under section 162 of 1956 Act. The Courts below illegally held the petitioner No. 1 as Director/responsible officer of the Company against the provisions of sections 264 and 266 of the 1956 Act. The petitioner contends that he never ....