Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (1) TMI 374

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on 3 of the Act - On the facts and in the circumstances, it is not possible at this stage to quash the very first information report, since much water has flown after registration of the FIR by the CBI - It was a fair suggestion but the learned counsel for the appellants expressed her reservation as regards the very validity of said minutes and order of Director General and wanted the question to be left open - Appeals are dismissed - 1235-1237 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 25-1-2011 - B. Sudershan Reddy and Surinder Singh Nijjar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Sudhir Kumar Gupta, Manish Gupta, Anuj Kumar Ranjan and Ms. Tasneem Ahamdi, Advocates, for the Appellant. S/Shri A. Mariarputham, Sr. Advocate, T.A. Khan, P.K. Dey, Arvind Kumar Sha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Archaeologist (Ant.) DG/ASI (addressed to the Superintendent of Police, CBI) in which it is inter alia stated that after examination of the said two paintings, they were found to be antique in nature. After receiving the complaint, further verification was conducted by the CBI. On verification of facts, the CBI found prima facie the commission of offence under Section 3 of the Act punishable under Section 25(1) of the said Act. The CBI accordingly registered the FIR on 29-1-2004 under Section 120B, IPC read with Section 25(1) read with Section 3 of the Act. The CBI has after investigation filed the charge sheet against the appellants company and two foreign nationals who purchased the said paintings in the auction. 4. Be it noted that af .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellants again moved another Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5656 of 2006 before Delhi High Court seeking appropriate directions against the ASI so as not to give effect to undated minutes of meetings dated 26-7-2005, 2, 5 16-8-2005 on various grounds with which we are not concerned for the present in these appeals. 7. The High Court vide order dated 28-4-2006, disposed of the Writ Petition directing the Director General, ASI to pass an order in terms of the decision of the Division Bench dated 24-3-2005 and granted stay of the prosecution till expiry of 30 days after the fresh determination/decision of Director General, ASI. Thereafter Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 2103-05 of 2005 have been filed resulting in the impugned order. It is interest .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... first FIR registered by the CBI. There is no explanation whatsoever forthcoming from the appellants as to why they did not implead the CBI in Writ Petition (C) No. 16598 of 2004 and challenge the FIR though they were aware of the same as is evident from their own affidavit filed in the High Court in support of Writ Petition (C) No. 16598 of 2004. It is not the case of the appellants that the FIR has been registered by the CBI without any proper intimation from the Archaeological Survey of India. The contention that the basis of the FIR does not survive in view of the judgment of Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C)No. 16598 of 2004 appears to be untenable and unsustainable. A bare reading of the judgment of the High Court does not support .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for doing substantial justice. No person is entitled to claim relief under Article 226 of the Constitution as a matter of course. 12. It is evident from the record that after registration of the first information report the CBI made detailed investigation in the matter and filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 25(1) read with Section 3 of the Act. The trial court having taken cognizance of offences framed charges against all the concerned. The appellants have even filed discharge application before the trial court on 21-8-2006. It is not clear from the averments made in the Writ Petition as to the result of the said application. 13. On the facts and in the circumstances, it is not possible at this stage to quash t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates