STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. RAJESH SYAL
LAWS(SC)-2002-10-22
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
October 04,2002
STATE OF PUNJAB
Appellant
VERSUS
RAJESH SYAL
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
RAVICHANDRAN B.R. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(TRIP)-2022-7-11] [REFERRED TO]SHIBI @ JIBY SHONY VS. CHALAKUDY TOWN FINANCIERS [LAWS(KER)-2017-4-75] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR GOYAL VS. STATE OF M. P. [LAWS(MPH)-2019-7-19] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL VS. TARUN K ROY [LAWS(SC)-2003-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
SATINDER SINGH BHASIN VS. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2019-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
GAJANAND AGARWAL VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(SC)-2006-9-29] [REFERRED TO]
MANTOO SARKAR VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD [LAWS(SC)-2008-12-162] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NIVAS VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-156] [REFERRED TO]
HEMLAL AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2018-5-65] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAVIR SAHKARI AVAS SAMITILTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-9-238] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH GOEL VS. ROHINI GOEL [LAWS(SC)-2010-2-17] [REFERRED TO]
SHABNAM @ MUKRI @ ABDUL QAYUM VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-5-14] [REFERRED TO]
BEAUTY SYIEMLIEH AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS. [LAWS(MEGH)-2015-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL ARSHAD VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2011-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
JAKKA VINOD KUMAR REDDY VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-6-13] [REFERRED TO]
A B BHASKARA RAO VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE CBI VISAKHAPATNAM [LAWS(SC)-2011-9-125] [REFERRED TO]
MAA SHARDA MAHA VIDYALAYA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-2-12] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2014-7-326] [REFERRED TO]
JAKIR HUSSAIN KOSIGI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2017-7-75] [REFERRED TO]
JOSEPH VS. STTE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-12-307] [REFERRED TO]
JOSEPH VS. STTE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-12-307] [REFERRED TO]
SIDHARDHAN VS. PRASANNAN [LAWS(KER)-2006-1-67] [REFERRED TO]
SACHIN MAHUR S/O LALLANLAL ARYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2019-2-129] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD KUMAR SAXENA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2008-9-100] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINI CHAOUDARY VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-4-138] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Special leave granted.
(2.)The respondent is a former Director of Messrs. Golden Forest (India) Limited. This company had collected money from the general public for purchasing the land and had promised that the amount would be returned after expiry of the maturity period fixed through cheques. When monies were not repaid and complaints were received by the State, the Vigilance Department registered FIRs against the respondent as a co-accused in the cases registered against Messrs. Golden Forest (India) Limited. The offences were under Ss. 406, 420, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and S. 7(2) of the Punjab Reforms Act, 1972. According to the prosecution crores of rupees had been obtained by the said company from members of the public. But on the maturity date the sums were not returned. When proceedings were initiated in different Courts the respondent filed an application under S. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short "Cr. P.C.") in the High Court praying that the charges framed against him may be dropped. Another application under S. 482 was filed to the effect that the cases which have been instituted against him should be tried in one Court. In this connection, reliance was placed by the respondent on a decision of this Court in the case of V. K. Sharma vs. Union of India (W.P. (Crl.) No. 256/1999)to which decision we shall presently revert to. In the said case by the order dated 28th March, 2000; liberty was granted to move the appropriate High Courts for bringing all the criminal cases pending before different Courts within the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court to one single Court or more than one Court consolidated, in a petition filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short "the Constitution"). But while passing the said order it was observed that the said order was not to be treated as a precedent.
(3.)The High Court, by treating the order in V. K. Sharma's case (supra) as a precedent allowed the petition under S. 482 and transferred those cases which were pending in different Courts in the State of Punjab against the respondent to the Special Judicial Magistrate.
(2.)The respondent is a former Director of Messrs. Golden Forest (India) Limited. This company had collected money from the general public for purchasing the land and had promised that the amount would be returned after expiry of the maturity period fixed through cheques. When monies were not repaid and complaints were received by the State, the Vigilance Department registered FIRs against the respondent as a co-accused in the cases registered against Messrs. Golden Forest (India) Limited. The offences were under Ss. 406, 420, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and S. 7(2) of the Punjab Reforms Act, 1972. According to the prosecution crores of rupees had been obtained by the said company from members of the public. But on the maturity date the sums were not returned. When proceedings were initiated in different Courts the respondent filed an application under S. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short "Cr. P.C.") in the High Court praying that the charges framed against him may be dropped. Another application under S. 482 was filed to the effect that the cases which have been instituted against him should be tried in one Court. In this connection, reliance was placed by the respondent on a decision of this Court in the case of V. K. Sharma vs. Union of India (W.P. (Crl.) No. 256/1999)to which decision we shall presently revert to. In the said case by the order dated 28th March, 2000; liberty was granted to move the appropriate High Courts for bringing all the criminal cases pending before different Courts within the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court to one single Court or more than one Court consolidated, in a petition filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short "the Constitution"). But while passing the said order it was observed that the said order was not to be treated as a precedent.
(3.)The High Court, by treating the order in V. K. Sharma's case (supra) as a precedent allowed the petition under S. 482 and transferred those cases which were pending in different Courts in the State of Punjab against the respondent to the Special Judicial Magistrate.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.