TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (7) TMI 388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anchayat concerned. The complainant alleged that accused Nos. 1 to 3 (Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 herein), who were the Managing Directors and Senior Officers of Wallace Flour Mills Ltd. had conspired and committed trespass on his property, demolished his house by razing it to the ground and carried away the debris leaving no trace. Since the complainant stayed at Shilphata, the accused took the advantage of his absence and committed the aforesaid offences. The complainant alleged that this was done by the accused as they were enraged by the refusal of the complainant to sell the property to them. In the complain the complainant stated that he had made a complainant with regard to the offence to the Khopoli Police Station, but the police had not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her persons, who appear to him, on the basis of the police report and other material placed before him, to be concerned in the commission of the offence in the particular case, after considering the totality of the material on record. 4. Mr. Vashi urged that a reference to S. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shows that the policy of the Code is that the offence can be taken cognizance of once only and not repeatedly upon discovery of further particulars. He pointed out that under S. 319 of the Code even during the trial of an offence, if it appears from the evidence that any person other than the accused therein has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed again....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contention raised by Mr. Vashi appears to be correct and deserves to be accepted. 5. Mr. Vashi then pointed out that in the instant case, not only did the first complaint filed by the complainant against Mahadu Gopal and others vide Criminal Case No. 745 of 1984 not disclose the fact that there were other unknown accused whose particulars were not available to the complainant at the time when the complaint was lodged, but that what is material is that the offences alleged in both the complaints i.e. Criminal Case No. 745 of 1984 against Mahadu Gopal and others and the complaint filed against the petitioners in Criminal Case No. 1004 of 1986 are identical. The counsel contends that by permitting the Magistrate to take cognizance of the comp....