national capital territory

This tag is associated with 2 posts

Non- official as co – accused can be prosecuted along with other official accused by Special court = Admittedly, 2G Scam case is triable by the Special Judge against the persons accused of offences punishable under the PC Act in view of sub­Section (1) of Section 4. The Special Judge alone can take the cognizance of the offence specified in sub­ Section (1) of Section 3 and conspiracy in relation to them. While trying any case, the Special Judge may also try an offence other than the offence specified in sub­Section (1) of Section 3, in view of sub­Section (3) of Section 4. A magistrate cannot take cognizance of offence as specified in Section 3(1) of the PC Act. In this background, as the petitioners have been shown as co­accused in second­ supplementary chargesheet filed in 2G Scam case, it is open to the Special Judge to take cognizance of the offence under Section 120­B and Section 420 IPC.- the Special Judge while trying the co­ accused of an offence punishable under the provisions of the Act as also an offence punishable under Section 120­B read with Section 420 IPC has the jurisdiction to try the appellant also for the offence punishable under Section 120­B read with Section 420 IPC applying the principles incorporated in Section 223 of the Code.; In the present case there is nothing on the record to suggest that the petitioners will not get fair trial and may face miscarriage of justice. In absence of any such threat & miscarriage of justice, no interference is called for against the impugned order taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioners. On 11th April, 2001, when the 2G Scam Case was taken up by this Court, this Court, inter alia, observed as follows: “Acting on such basis, this Court has given directions for establishing a separate Special Court to try this case and pursuant to such direction, a Special Court has been constituted after following the due procedure. We also make it clear that any objection about appointment of Special Public Prosecutor or his assistant advocates or any prayer for staying or impeding the progress of the Trial can be made only before this Court and no other court shall entertain the same. The trial must proceed on a day­to­ day basis. All these directions are given by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution and in the interest of holding a fair prosecution of the case.” From the aforesaid order it is clear that this Court passed the order under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution, in the interest of holding a fair prosecution of the case. – In Rupa Asbhok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and another, (2002) 4 SCC 388, this Court held that a final judgment or order passed by this Court cannot be assailed in an application under Article 32 of the Constitution by an aggrieved person, whether he was a party to the case or not. For the said reason also, it is not open to the petitioner to indirectly assail the order passed by this Court in 2G Scam case. 30. We find no merit in these writ petitions, they are accordingly dismissed. The Special Court is expected to proceed with the trial on day­to­day basis to ensure early disposal of the trial. There shall be no order as to costs.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40469 Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) No. 57 OF 2012 ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. … PETITIONER Versus REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT  & ORS.  … RESPONDENTS With WRIT PETITION (C) No. 59 OF 2012 LOOP TELECOM LTD.  … PETITIONER Versus REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT  & ORS.      … RESPONDENTS With WRIT PETITION (C) No. 96 OF 2012 VIKASH SARAF … PETITIONER Versus REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT  & ORS.  … RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. Feeling   aggrieved   by   the   order   dated   21st December, 2011 passed by the Special Judge, Central 1Page 2 Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi taking cognizance against   the   petitioners,   they   … Continue reading

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Release of Performance Bank Guarantees as the roll out obligation was performed=It is seen that the petitioner has fulfilled its roll out for the 2 nd phase within three years of issue of start up spectrum. In all these cases, the test certificate has been issued by TERM Cell based on registration with Term Cell, it is seen that the roll out obligation have been completed in all the cases starting from November 2010 to Jan 2011. If the roll out of 2 nd phase has been done within 3 years of date of start up spectrum, there is no need to go into the issue of various contentious issues related to definition of start up spectrum, delay in SACFA clearance etc. These become immaterial. Therefore, we do not agree with the submissions of the respondent that they are unable to decide the same due to our order dated 13.01.2012. 20. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the release of PBG in respect of (a) Maharashtra; (b) Andhra Pradesh ; (c) Gujarat; (d) Rajasthan; (e) Mumbai ; (f) Karnataka; (g) Delhi; (h) 28 Punjab; (i) Uttar Pradesh(East); (j) Kerala; (k ) Madhya Pradesh; (l) Haryana; (m) Uttar Pradesh(West); (n) Kolkatta. However, if the LD amount imposed on the petitioner is to be released, the petitioner will provide the PBG to the equal extent. 21. The chart shows that there was abnormal delay in meeting out the roll out obligation for the Ist phase in respect of following circles : Orissa, North-East, West Bengal, Bihar, Assam, J & K There is a delay in meeting Ist phase roll out obligation in case of Himachal Pradesh also. According to the respondent, the calculation of LD for both Ist and 2 nd phase roll out obligation has to be done and the same is pending for calculation by them. The respondent cannot hold the PBGs indefinitely without taking any action on its part. In view of the abnormal delay in fulfilling its Ist phase roll out obligation by the petitioner, we do not propose to order any release of PBG at present in respect of these seven circles. However, the respondent is directed to take expeditious action for calculation of the LD amount, if any, and as early as possible but not later than 3 months. The petitioner will be at 29 liberty to approach this Tribunal, if any occasion arises thereafter on the same cause of action. 22. Regarding Tamil Nadu and Chennai Circles, i.e. Petition Nos. 512 of 2011 and 513 of 2011, the petitioner got CMTS licenses and not UASL licenses. The relevant conditions related to PBG and roll out obligations are different. Therefore, we do not propose to pass any order at present in respect of these circles. The Petition No. 512 and 513 of 2011 will be heard separately. 23. In view of the aforementioned reasons, these petitions are partly allowed in terms of aforementioned directions

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI Dated 11 th April, 2012 Petition No.491 of 2011 Aircel Limited (Maharashtra) …Petitioner Vs. Union of India,New Delhi …Respondent Petition No.492 of 2011 Aircel Limited (A.P.) …Petitioner Vs. Union of India,New Delhi …Respondent Petition No.493 of 2011 Aircel Limited (Gujarat) …Petitioner Vs. Union of India,New Delhi …Respondent … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,884,469 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com