Harshad S. Mehta as opposed to Central Bureau Of Investigation on you October, 1992

Delhi Large Court Delhi High The courtroom Harshad H. Mehta versus Central Bureau Of Investigation on 1 October, 1992 Equivalent details: 1992 (24) DRJ 392, ILR 93 Delhi 274 Author: U Mehra Bench: U Mehra JUDGMENT Usha Mehra, J. (1) Mr. Harshad S i9000. Mehta an agent of Bombay Stock Exchange was lodged in Byculla imprisonment Bombay in August, 1992. C. B. My spouse and i, at Delhi registered a case vide Farreneheit. I. 3rd there’s r. No . RC2(A)/92-ACU(V) dated twenty fifth July, 1992, against him along with Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, M/s, KJ. Investments Private Limited. and other unidentified under Sections 11, doze, 13(2) and 13(l)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Work, 1988 (hereinafter called while 'P. C. Act') browse with Section 120B Of india Penal Code. (2) That since the petitioner during the relevant time was in Byculla prison Bombay, therefore , C. N. I, moved an application before Special Assess Delhi upon 12th Aug, 1992 under Section 267 Criminal Procedure Code. for the production of the petitioner. The Special Evaluate, Delhi vide his order dated twelfth August, 1992 directed the Supdt. Prison, Byculla Bombay to produce Mister. Harshad T. Mehta in the Court as his presence was required for revendication in connection with the investigation with this case. (3) That the petitiner, in pursuance to the explained order was produced before the Special Judge, Delhi in 17th September, 1992. On being produced, petitioner was formally caught in this case on 17th August, 1992 alone. Police remand was desired which was presented till 20th August, 1992. Thereafter police remand was extended right up until 22nd September, 1992. Yet , vide buy dated 22nd August, 1992, Mr. Kuldip Singh, Special Judge, Delhi did not give police remand but remanded the petitioner to judicial custody right up until 25th August, 1992 in Central Prison, Tihar. (4) That the petitioner was taken to Bombay about 24th September, 1992 and thereafter by no means produced ahead of the Special Assess, Delhi. The remand following 25th Aug, 1992 was neither wanted nor given to the petitioner. (5) It really is in this background Mr. Dinesh C. " Mathur, Sr. Advocate intended for the petitioner has increased very important questions of regulation. So 'far there is no decision of any kind of High Court or in the Apex Court docket on these points. These are generally: I)Whether in the interest of interrogation in connection with the investigation, the prosecuting agency may invoke the provisions of Section 267 Criminal Process Code.? II)Whether remand beneath Section 167(2) Criminal Treatment Code. should be taken every 15 days or perhaps not and whether following your initial remand of two weeks, the charged can be remanded in perpetuity subject of course to the outer limit of 60/190 days and nights? (6) In question No . 1, the rival the law of the lawyer for the parties can be sumed up thus, which the production of the petitioner via Byculla Jail in order to answer the fee in investigation is contrary to law. The provisions of Section 267 Criminal Procedure Code. can simply be invoked in case proceedings are pending in The courtroom pertaining to Request or trial. Investigation is usually neither Inquiry nor trial. Further this kind of provision is known as a help in aid to the Felony Court for summoning the accused via another prison for the purpose of responding to a impose in Query or trial; and to appear as observe or pertaining to giving facts. The purpose of the legislature was not to let investigating agency to use this kind of provision for the purpose of summoning the accused coming from another imprisonment in order to answer a impose in research. That is why the word investigation has been omitted with this Section. The provision of Section 267 Criminal Process Code. can not be invoked in Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/538111/ 1

Harshad S. Mehta vs Central Bureau Of Investigation in 1 Oct, 1992

so that it will facilitate the investigating firm to make formal arrest. Alternatively, C. B. I's a contentious is that the phrase other proceeding' appearing underneath Section 267 Criminal Process Code. will include investigation. Interpretation of...