State Of Nct Delhi vs. Mukesh Kumar Singh

R ITEM NO.68 COURT NO.4 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).7210-7211/2013 18/05/2013 in CC No.18/2010, of the HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI) RAVINDER CHADHA Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for ex-parte stay and office report ) Date: 16/09/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL For Petitioner(s) Mr.A.Sharan, Sr.Adv. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari,Adv. Mr.Avinash Tripathy, Adv For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Shri Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submits that the charge-sheet was filed by the contesting respondents for an offence under Section 7/8/13(1)(a)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the P.C. Act') as well as under Sections 384/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "the IPC"). However, he, further submits that the Special Judge has taken cognizance of only the offences under Section 7/13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act.

: 2 :

Learned senior counsel further submits that on a later date, the learned Special Judge has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 384/120-B/34 of the IPC and Section 8/ 13(2) of the P.C. Act. According to the learned counsel, this could not have been done by the learned Special Judge. Though this fact was brought to the notice of the High Court, the same has not been taken exception to.

Having noted the statement so made by the learned senior counsel, we issue notice, returnable in three weeks'.

Dasti, in addition, is permitted.

(G.V.Ramana) (Indu Satija) Court Master Court Master

(From the judgement and order dated 26/04/2013 in WP No.1658/2010, dated