Skip to content


M.L. Sachdeva Vs. State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Miscellaneous (Main) Appeal No. 224 of 1978
Judge
Reported in14(1978)DLT204
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 420
AppellantM.L. Sachdeva
RespondentState
Advocates: R.L. Mehta, Adv
Excerpt:
- .....aforesaid order. the contention urged on behalf of m.l. sachdeva is that there is no evidence on record connecting him with the crime. i have been taken through the statement record and i find that there is no material to connect m.l. sachdeva with the offence of conspiracy. the approver om prakash did give evidence that m.l. sachdeva, section officer, working in udyog bhavan, had visited amritsar and he was introduced to him by his co-accused chaman lal but stated that he was not in a position to identify that officer. except the above there is no other evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. in this view the petition has to be allowed. consequently, i allow the petition and quash the charge as far as the petitioner m.l. sachdeva is concerned. a copy of my order.....
Judgment:

R.N. Aggarwal, J.

(1) On 9th January 1978 Shri R.L. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, framed charges against the petitioner M.L. Sachdeva and 5 others under Section 120-B read with section 420 of the Indian Penal Code: the other accused were also charge-sheeted for various other offences. M.L. Sachdeva has come in revision against the aforesaid order. The contention urged on behalf of M.L. Sachdeva is that there is no evidence on record connecting him with the crime. I have been taken through the statement record and I find that there is no material to connect M.L. Sachdeva with the offence of conspiracy. The approver Om Prakash did give evidence that M.L. Sachdeva, Section Officer, working in Udyog Bhavan, had visited Amritsar and he was introduced to him by his co-accused Chaman Lal but stated that he was not in a position to identify that officer. Except the above there is no other evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. In this view the petition has to be allowed. Consequently, I allow the petition and quash the charge as far as the petitioner M.L. Sachdeva is concerned. A copy of my order be sent to the learned trial Judge who shall now proceed further with the case.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //