0

Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgement passed by the single judge bench upholding the candidature of respondents

Uncategorized , , , , , , , , ,

Title: MR KISHOR BANDEKAR AND ORS vs MR MAHESH CANDOLKAR AND ORS

Reserved on: 03rd July, 2023

Pronounced on: 06th July, 2023

+ LPA 504/2023 & CAV 312/2023, CM APPLs. 32400-32403/2023, 32711/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Introduction

Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgement dated 02nd June, 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 15097/2021, upholding the order dated 14th December, 2021 passed by Appellate Authority of All-India Chess Federation, New Delhi [“AICF”].

Facts of the Case

The Goa Chess Association [“GCA”] is a state-level sports organisation that is affiliated with both the AICF and the Sports Authority of Goa. It was established in accordance with the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The GCA’s Memorandum of Association (hence, “MoA”) and Rules and Regulations, all of which have been endorsed by the association’s General Body, serve as the framework for its governance.

A crucial adjustment to the GCA’s constitution was made by the General Body at its meeting on January 8th, 2017, raising the number of elected members of the Executive Committee from seven to twelve.

The GCA announced the elections for the Executive Committee on July 22, 2021. The list of accepted nomination forms was made public on August 5, 2021, and on August 10, 2021, the Presiding Officer (the “PO”) announced the names of the candidates elected to the North and South Goa Taluka Associations. The nomination forms of Respondents Nos. 1 through 4 were also ruled to be invalid, and a number of candidates from the talukas of Barder, Tiswadi, Ponda, and Salcete were found to have won their elections without opposition.

Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 contested the aforementioned PO disqualification of candidature before the AICF Ethics Commission in line with the AICF Code of Ethics. The Commission reversed PO’s decision through an order that was signed on October 19, 2021, and instructed that the voting procedure be completed within two weeks of the day that the order was received. The Appellants filed an appeal against this ruling with the AICF Appellate Authority, but it was denied on December 14 of that year, and the Ethics Commission’s judgement was upheld.

2.5. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the appellants filed W.P.(C) 15097/2021 after being dissatisfied with the Appellate Authority’s ruling.

However, on June 2, 2023, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal and upheld Appellate Authority’s decision.

Analysis & Decision of the court

The Delhi high court held that The General Body meeting on January 8, 2017, when it was decided to expand the number of elected members of the GCA’s Executive Committee, is where the dispute’s origins may be found. This choice was made in order to permit additional committee members who might aid in the growth of chess in Goa and broaden the association’s operations. The MoA and GCA Rules and Regulations modifications were authorised by the resolution that came out of this meeting. Twelve elected members and one nominated member from each associated Taluka Chess Association will make up the Executive Committee of the GCA, according to the updated bye-laws and MoA.

 The challenged ruling exhibits a careful consideration of the provisions of the MoA and Rules and Regulations of GCA. The prerequisites for a candidate, the election process, the tenure of the Committee members, and the mechanism for filling any vacancies on the Executive Committee are all outlined in Rule 42(i)(a) (extracted above). Additionally, it describes the election process, including the criteria for nominations, the review of nominations, and the roles of the President, Secretary, and designated Presiding Officer. Contrary to what Mr. Nayyar has emphasised, this clause does not support his allegation. The aim to expand the number of delegates is mentioned in the minutes of the meeting, but it is not stated expressly that these representatives should be equally divided across all talukas. That would imply that it is possible for a taluka to have more than one representative on the Executive Committee.

This viewpoint is reinforced by the modified Clause 13 of the Memorandum of Agreement, which stipulates that one delegate from each associated taluka should be a member of the Executive Committee, however it leaves open the possibility of electing an unlimited number of office holders from each taluka. The number of office bearers who can be chosen from a particular taluka is not limited under Rule 42(i)(a) of the GCA’s Rules and Regulations. The language employed in Rule 42(ii)(a), which requires that candidates for the Executive Committee elections be delegates with voting rights of and sponsored by Taluka Associations, supports the learned Single Judge’s view. According to this regulation, eligibility is dependent on being a delegate and instead of the number of representatives per taluka, voting rights.

Rule 42(i)(a), which is instrumental in the formation of Executive Committee comprising of both elected and nominated representatives, does not impose any limitations as canvassed by the Appellants. There is no requirement to guarantee that each taluka is represented on the Executive Committee under Rule 42(i)(a). This interpretation conforms to the erudite Single Judge’s opinion, which we also agree with.

We see no justification for interfering with the challenged finding relating to the PO’s judgement since we do not think the Appellants’ objection to the interpretation of such regulations has any validity. Therefore, the learned Single Judge’s opinion is still unchallengeable with regard to this matter as well. In conclusion, the erudite Single Judge’s interpretation based on the explicit wording employed in the GCA’s Rules and Regulations as well as the General Body resolution, appears to be accurate. Instead than restricting the number of office bearers per taluka, it appears that the stated requirements’ main goal is to increase representation and guarantee that each taluka has at least one delegate on the Executive Committee.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

click here to view the judgement

0

Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition filed and dismissed the order passed by the Container Corporation of India Ltd.

Blog , , , , , , , , ,

Title: Loadstar Equipment Ltd. Vs Container Corporation of India Ltd.

Decision: 04.07.23

W.P.(C) 5040/2023 & CM APPL. 19721/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

Introduction

Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition filed and dismissed the order passed by the Container Corporation of India Ltd, disqualifying the petitioner from participating in the bidding of tender bearing reference no. CON/AREA1/TECH/FORKLIFT-20/2023, which was floated by Respondent No. 1 on their website vide NIT dated 08.02.2023.

Facts of the Case

The Respondent No. 1 invited applications on the government portal for bids from Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs)/authorized dealers through a two packet online open tendering system, at an estimated total cost of Rs. 38,11,40,000/-, for the design, manufacture, supply, and commissioning of 20 forklifts with a capacity of 35 tonnes at a specified terminal. This is the background to the current petition.

Respondent No.1/CONCOR subsequently issued a corrigendum in respect of the part of the NIT document which lays down qualification criterion for bidders. Accordingly, Clause 2.1(b) under Section II “General Instructions to Bidders” was added to the NIT document.

Upon examination of the bid documents in the technical stage, Respondent No.1 issued communications to the bidding parties on 23.03.2023 and again on 24.03.2023, calling upon them to submit additional documents to rectify discrepancies found in the documents, latest by 29.03.2023. and The Petitioner submitted their reply to the aforesaid communication and submitted documents to the Respondent vide emails dated 28.03.2023 and 29.03.2023

On a perusal of the documents submitted by the Petitioner, the Tender Evaluation Committee of Respondent No.1 found the Petitioner to be technically not qualified and rejected the bid of the Petitioner vide impugned communication dated 18.04.2023. The Petitioner thereafter addressed an email to the CMD of Respondent No. 1, stating that no reasons had been assigned for their disqualification, and requested the intervention of CMD of Respondent No. 1 to permit the Petitioner to give further clarifications. However, there was no response to this communication.

Being aggrieved by the decision of the Respondent No.1 dated 18.04.2023, disqualifying the Petitioner from the tender process, the Petitioner has filed the instant petition on 19.04.2023, challenging the impugned communication.

Analysis and Decision of the court

In accordance with Clause 2.1, a qualified bidder must have submitted at least one purchase order for a comparable good to at least one government department, CPSC, SPSC, public limited company, etc. during the previous three years and on or before the last day of the financial year immediately preceding the one for which the bid is being submitted. Additionally, it states that a bidder and an authorised dealer cannot submit separate bids for the same product or item in the same tender.

According to Clause 2.1, the manufacturer or an authorised dealer must demonstrate that they have successfully delivered or completed one purchase order in order to be taken into consideration for the tender. According to the certificate provided by APL Apollo Steel Pipes, M/s Excellent Engineering & Allied Service Private Limited provided the device produced by the petitioner.

The justification offered by Respondent No. 1 was that M/s Excellent Engineering & Allied Service Private Limited was the beneficiary of the certificate issued by APL Apollo Steel Pipes. This justification is inadmissible since the proof demonstrates that M/s Excellent Engineering & Allied Service Private Limited worked with Apollo Steel Pipes to complete the machine the petitioner built.

It is undeniably well established that judicial review of administrative acts, including those involving tenders, is severely constrained. However, judicial review may be used to stop arbitrary, unreasonable, and illogical behaviour.

The fundamental requirement of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution is now well established and has been upheld numerous times by the Apex Court. Non-arbitrariness in substance and essence is the lifeblood of fair play, and State actions are subject to judicial review to the extent that the State must act lawfully for a discernible reason and not arbitrarily. The Court must intervene in order to exercise its authority under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution if the State or an instrumentality of the State fails to behave reasonably or fairly in the awarding of contracts. Vice Chairman & Managing Director, City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and Others v. Shishir Realty Private Limited and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1141 a case decided by the Supreme Court, where it was held that “Fairness and the good faith standard ingrained in the contracts entered into by public authorities mandates such public authorities to conduct themselves in a non-arbitrary manner during the performance of their contractual obligations” and “The constitutional guarantee against arbitrariness as provided under Article 14, demands the State to act in a fair and reasonable manner unless public interest demands otherwise. However, the degree of compromise of any private legitimate interest must correspond proportionately to the public interest, so claimed”

Arbitrariness is the antithesis of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, and the State must operate in a fair and reasonable manner, as has been well-established and stated by the Apex Court. As previously stated, the bidder who is a manufacturer only needed to demonstrate that it has experience supplying at least one single purchase order of government departments, CPSEs, SPSEs, Public Listed Companies, ICD, DCT, MMLP, Ports, CFS, CTOs for similar item during the previous three financial years and current financial year last day of month prior to the one in which tender is invited.

A thorough study of Clauses 2.1, 5.4, and Annexures 10 and 11 of the NIT reveals that the maker must merely demonstrate that it has provided a machine that has been installed satisfactorily. In a similar vein, Annexure-14 stipulates that the maker must also provide the certificate.

Since the Petitioner has demonstrated that it satisfies the qualifying requirements, their bid shouldn’t have been turned down.

The Respondent No. 1 was instructed to open the Petitioner’s financial bid during the hearing, and it turned out that the Petitioner was the lowest bidder.

 Given the foregoing, the writ petition and any pending applications, if any, are approved. It is mandated that the Respondents go forward in line with the law.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

Click to view the judgement

0

Delhi High Court dismissed the Regular First appeal filed, seeking partition of the property.

Blog , , , , , , , , ,

Title: Smt. Sarita Dua vs Dr. Gautam Dev Sood & Ors.

Reserved on: 14.03.23

Pronounced on: 04.07.23

+ RFA(OS) 27/2022

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                 HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

Introduction

Delhi high court held that the petition for partition is not maintainable if the cancellation of existing Gift deed is not sought.

Facts of the case

The three plaintiffs, who were sisters, filed a lawsuit against the defendant seeking to divide the property bearing N-32, Greater Kailash, New Delhi (hence referred to as the suit property).

In order to profit himself, the late Dr. Vyas Dev Sood, the parties’ father, acquired the suit property on April 27, 1965, using his own money. He did this in the name of his wife, the late Smt. Raj Kumari Sood, and a two-story home was subsequently built there. He passed away on January 31, 2001, while the parties’ mother, Smt. Raj Kumari Sood, passed away in October 2004. They both passed away intestate, leaving behind two sons and three daughters: Dr. Devashish Kumar Sood, who is being represented by his legal heirs, and the three daughters who are the plaintiffs. The parties’ disagreements led to the filing of the lawsuit for partition and rendition of accounts.

Analysis and decision of the court

The court analysed and stated that the parties have agreed that the suit property was acquired in 1965 under the mother of the plaintiff through a recorded Sale Deed. The appellant/plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff’s father paid all of the money necessary for the acquisition of the suit property out of his own pocket. Therefore, in contrast to the father who was a de jure owner, the mother was just a de facto owner of the property. now the property was benami, the de jure ownership remained with the father until his passing. Thereafter, according to the law of succession, it passed to all of the legal heirs, who have now requested the property’s division. It also held that the basic argument behind the plea of benami transaction is that the father purchased the property out off his own funds and registered it in name of the mother, While the law creates a prohibition against the right to recover property held benami, the law has culled out certain exceptions to benami transactions under Section 3(2) of the Benami Act. the mother’s name was used in the recorded Sale Deed dated 27.04.1965 to acquire the subject property. Both the mother and father have passed away, and the father never asserted ownership of the land throughout his lifetime. The appellants have now contested the Sale Deed as being in violation of the Benami Transaction Act, approximately 50 years after the Sale Deed was executed. A claim of father-owned property that is so nebulous and unsupported by any information, including any explanation of the finances that can be traced to the father, has been rightfully dismissed as unsubstantiated. Section 3(2) of the Act, no doubt creates a presumption if the property is purchased in the name of wife or daughter, but this presumption would have arisen only if there was any basis to establish that father had purchased property benami in the name of his wife. Section 4 of the Act places a complete embargo on claiming any right if the transaction is per se benami i.e. the property is purchased in the name of one while the funds are paid by another. Section 4(2) of the Benami Act prohibits any suit on the basis of such transaction; no person can assert to be the real owner of such property held benami. The Apex Court in the case of R. Rajagopal Reddy (dead) by LRs and Ors vs Radmini Chandrasekaran (dead) by LRs (1995) 2 SCC 630 clarified the retrospective application of Section 4 and observed that Section 4 shall be applicable from the date it came into effect and no claim, suit or action preferred by the real owner, to enforce any right in respect of the property held benami, would lie/be admissible in any court. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Roy Vs. Sandeep Soni, (Supra) followed the judgement of Ramti Devi (Supra) and observed that Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 extinguishes the right in property on expiry of the period of limitation.

The appellants have cited as Manoj Arora v. Mamta Arora (Supra), in which the husband claimed to be the de jure owner of the two and launched a lawsuit against the wife seeking a declaration and an injunction homes that he had bought in the defendant, his wife’s name.

He had provided information on the source of the funds and the sums that he had used to pay for those properties. The Coordinate Bench of this Court noted that the action could not have been dismissed in accordance with Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC where there are explicit allegations in the plaint that the husband acquired the property in the name of his wife.

However, in this instance, neither the mother nor the father ever said that the father had bought the property benami (in the name of) the mother’s. In fact, the parties to the lawsuit did not claim the property was benami in the mother’s name while their parents were alive. Furthermore, neither in this lawsuit nor the prior civil litigation with case number CS (OS) 1912/2009 has any statement been requested in relation to the Sale Deed that was completed on April 27, 1965, in the mother’s name. Additionally, the plaintiffs have not revealed the origin of the cash.

The appellant in Ramti Devi v. Union of India (previous) understood that the Sale Deed had been executed and registered on January 29, 1947. When the appellant gained information that the instrument was being completed, the three-year limitation period outlined in Article 59 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, started to run. The 1966 lawsuit was rejected by the Apex Court as being time-barred since the 1959 lawsuit had been withdrawn and replaced by the 1966 lawsuit. This case is similar to the present petition where defendants had countered the claim of appellants for partition with asserting a right in their favour on the basis of two registered Gift Deeds dated 13.03.2000 and 11.03.2002, executed in their favour by the mother. The defendants in the prior litigation had argued for their exclusive claim to the suit property on the basis of the two Git Deeds, according to the appellant’s averments in paragraph 17, which are obviously evident. Therefore, the plaintiffs had knowledge of the two Gift Deeds from at least 2009. The cause of action to dispute the aforementioned Gift Deeds emerged in 2009 when the appellants became aware of the Gift Deeds, and according to Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the cause of action may only be contested three years after the date of knowledge. Therefore, we concur with the learned Single Judge’s conclusions that the case was barred by limitation.

The defendants, respondents, claimed that the current lawsuit for partition and rendition of accounts could not be maintained without first requesting the cancellation of the two gift deeds as their second defence. In the case of Prem Singh and Ors vs Birbal and Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 353 The Supreme Court established the need for setting aside a registered document and observed thus: “27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption.” The Coordinate Bench of this Court had stated in Anita Anand v. Gargi Kapur, (Supra), that the plaintiff would not be eligible for partition until he challenged the Gift Deed. The determination of the Gift Deed’s illegality would result in relief from division. Similar to this, the Supreme Court ruled in Ramti Devi v. Union of India (Supra) that a document that has been duly completed and registered stays valid and binds the parties unless it is properly revoked by the Court.

Thus, it has been held that the petition for partition is not maintainable if the cancellation of existing Gift deed is not sought.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

Click to view the judgement

0

Delhi High court passed an order directing the Petitioner/tenants to pay use and occupation charges.

Blog , , , , , , , , ,

Title: MURARI CHAUHAN & ANR vs KAILASH NARAIN MALHOTRA

Decided on: 21.06.2023

+ RC.REV. 174/2019 & CM APPL. 13057/2019 and CM APPL. 40082/2019

CORAM: HON’BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

Introduction

The Delhi High court passed an order on an application seeking directions to pay use and occupation charges by the petitioner/tenants from the date of the eviction order dated 20.09.2018 till the revision petition is finally decided by this court.

Facts of the case

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent/landlord submits that the Petitioner/tenant is in occupation of the demised premises for many years and the execution of the Eviction Order was stayed by this Court on 19.03.2019.

The present Application was filed on 03.08.2019 and the Notice in the Application was issued on 13.03.2020. On 13.03.2020, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/tenant had sought time to file a Reply to the present Application. The Reply has not been filed despite the last opportunity granted by this Court on 25.01.2023. On 01.05.2023, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/tenant, sought more time to file a Reply to the present Application.

Respondent/landlord has opposed the grant of any further time to file the Reply, as no Reply has been filed for almost 4 years. He further submits that the Petitioner/tenant has obtained Interim Orders from this Court and thereafter no use and occupation charges are being paid by the Petitioner/tenant.

In these circumstances, the Orders in this Application were reserved, and the Parties were given leave to file their respective written submissions.

Analysis and Decision of the court

The Delhi High Court held that the Supreme Court in its recent judgment in Martin and Harris Private Limited and Another v. Rajendra Mehta and others confirmed Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. in the event that after the eviction is accepted, the tenant is obliged to pay the usage fees and usage fee of the respective sites based on the market rate until the application is finally removed. However, it has been found that the tendency to pay benefit or compensation depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, including the location of the property, whether it is in a village, town or city, and its character, whether commercial or residential and the circumstances of each case are governed by the usual rate of rent. It is noted that in relation to rentals at:

 (i) It is a newly constructed building and therefore not applicable;

 (ii) It is 2600 sq. ft. property with a rent of Rs. 72,000/- so at that price the occupancy charges for this space can be around Rs. 27.70 per square meter foot;

 (iii) Located far from the destroyed sites in a more expensive location.

The applicant/tenant has not registered leases. In the circumstances of the case, the order of the rental agreement no. (ii), above, viz. property measuring 258 square meters @ Rs.72,000/- seems most suitable for comparison considering that the destroyed premises is a shop on the ground floor.

In addition, since the location of the demolished premises is in a prime commercial area and the fact that the applicant/tenant uses the demolished premises for commercial purposes as much as he is engaged in the sale of shoes for daily use must also be borne. in mind However, since the demolished space is located in an old and dilapidated building, the price has been reduced. Therefore, without prejudice to the rights and claims of the parties, the applicant/tenant shall pay the occupancy and accommodation fees to the defendant/landlord and all payments shall be made to the bank account of the defendant/landlord.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

Click to Review the full Judgement

0

DENIAL OF BAIL PETITION BY ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT TO A PERSON DEALING IN NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPHIC SUBSTANCES

Blog ,

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju vs Special Assistant Public Prosecutor

BENCH – HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3303 of 2023

Date of Judgement – 18.05.2023

INTRODUCTION

This case is about the denial of bail petition in case of non-bailable offences (section 437 cr.p.c.) and the power of high court or court of session regarding bail (section 439 cr.p.c.).

The relevant provisions followed in this case are as follows: –

Section 20(b) in The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

(b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable 1[(i) where such contravention relates to clause (a) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; and

(ii) where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b),

(A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both

(B) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.

(C) and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees: Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.

Section 8(c) in The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder and in a case where any such provision, imposes any requirement by way of licence, permit or authorisation also in accordance with the terms and conditions of such licence, permit or authorisation.

The court heard Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.3 and Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent- State.

FACTS

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.3, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.59 of 2022 of Prakash Nagar Police Station, Rajamahendravaram Urban. A case has been registered against the Petitioner and others for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act‘).

On 21.2.2022 at 06.00 a.m., on credible information, the Inspector of Police, Prakash Nagar Police Station found Accused No.1 and 4 at V.L.Puram Raithu Bazar, Rajamahendravaram, in illegal possession and transportation of 13 bags of Ganja weighing 295 Kgs and 1.2 Kgs of Liquid Ganja in a Chevrolet Enjoy Car bearing No.AP 31 TF 3199 and Lorry bearing No.TN 52A 3508 along with motor cycle bearing No.AP 39 AD 8329. Accused Nos.1 and 4 confessed about the involvement of the Petitioner/Accused No.3 and another person.

JUDGEMENT

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was arrested on 06.1.2023 and remanded to judicial custody.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the contraband seized was about 295 KGs of Dry Ganja besides 1.2 Kgs of Liquid Ganja. Since there are specific accusation levelled against the Petitioner and that the Ganja seized was a commercial quantity, this Court was not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner at this stage.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN

click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

1 … 9 10 11 12 13