Full Judgment Text
CRL.A. NO. 243 of 2005
1
ITEM NO.113 COURT NO.7 SECTION IIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 243 OF 2005
RAJESH CHARI Appellant (s)
VERSUS
ZUARI STRUCTURAL WORKS Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for suspension of sentence and office report)
Date: 12/08/2010 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARJIT SINGH BEDI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.K. PRASAD
For Appellant(s) Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Adv.
Mr. Rauf Rahim, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal is partly allowed in terms of the
signed order.
(KALYANI GUPTA)
(VINOD KULVI)
SR. P.A.
COURT MASTER
CRL.A. NO. 243 of 2005
2
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE.]
CRL.A. NO. 243 of 2005
3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 243 OF 2005
RAJESH CHARI ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
ZUARI STRUCTURAL WORKS ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
th
1. On 11 January, 2007, this Court made the
following order:
“Let fresh notice be issued to
the respondent.
Office is directed to sent
notice by registered post as well.
Learned counsel for the
Appellant has made a statement that the
appellant has deposited an amount of
Rs. 45,000/-. The appellant is
directed to file an affidavit clearly
stating whether the said amount has
been deposited and also submit proof of
the deposit allegedly made.
List after one month.”
2. In response to the order, the appellant has also
th
filed an affidavit dated 14 February, 2007 and in
paragraph 5 thereof, it has been averred that a sum of
Rs. 49,094/- which was the amount computed after adding
the interest to Rs. 45,000/- that is the amount of the
cheque, had been deposited by the appellant in the High
Court and that the respondent had received the said
th
amount on 24 October, 2005. We also see that despite
CRL.A. NO. 243 of 2005
4
service the respondent has not put in appearance. In
this background, we feel that the ends of justice would
be met if we maintain the conviction but set aside the
sentence of imprisonment. We make an order in the
above terms.
3. The appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed.
..................J
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
..................J
[C.K. PRASAD]
NEW DELHI
AUGUST 12, 2010.