The court considered a criminal application challenging an order rejecting a discharge application. It held that the evidence did not sustain a prima facie case under Sections 409 and 120-B of IPC, rejecting the application.
Application rejected; interim stay vacated; order of trial court confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1732 OF 2005
------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram Court’s or Judge’s orders
appearances, Court’s orders
or directions and
Registrar’s orders
-----------------------------------------------------
Smt. S.I.Shah i/by M/s.S.I.Shah &
Co. for the applicants.
Mr.Nimish Desai for Respondent no.2
Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP for the State.
Coram : R.S.Mohite,J
Date : 3.2.2006.
PC
1. This is an application impugning
an order dated 7.5.2004 passed by the
Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court,
Girgaon, Mumbai, by which the trial
Court has rejected discharge
application and proceeded to frame
charge against the accused. The
order has been confirmed by the
revisional Court. I have perused the
complaint. Though the application
has been filed without enclosing the
evidence, the copy of the evidence
has been tendered by the Advocate for
the respondent across the bar and I
have perused the same. Prima facie
: 2 :
there is a material to indicate
offence under Sections 409 r/w 120-B
of IPC. The case of the applicant is
that accused nos.1 & 2 were Chairman
and director of the complainant
company. That they mis-utilised 200
cheques which were signed in blank by
the managing director and withdrew a
large amount of about Rs.2.80 crores
from the company’s account. It was
sought to be contended before me that
there were in fact 217 cheques.
There is no such case made out in the
complaint. The evidence in the
matter has commenced. The question
as to whom exactly the payments were
made and as to whether the
shareholders did receive any
repayment, will be matter of
evidence. In the circumstances, in
my view, there is no substance in the
application and the same stands
rejected. Interim stay stands
vacated.
(R.S.Mohite,J)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is sufficient material on record to sustain a charge under Sections 409 and 120-B of IPC.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. S.I.Shah
Respondent no.2
R.S.Mohite
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court