TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accused Nos. 1 to 3 (Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 herein), who were the Managing Directors and Senior Officers of Wallace Flour Mills Ltd. had conspired and committed trespass on his property, demolished his house by razing it to the ground and carried away the debris leaving no trace. Since the complainant stayed at Shilphata, the accused took the advantage of his absence and committed the aforesaid offences. The complainant alleged that this was done by the accused as they were enraged by the refusal of the complainant to sell the property to them. In the complain the complainant stated that he had made a complainant with regard to the offence to the Khopoli Police Station, but the police had not taken any action in the matter. He also stated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the police report and other material placed before him, to be concerned in the commission of the offence in the particular case, after considering the totality of the material on record. 4. Mr. Vashi urged that a reference to S. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shows that the policy of the Code is that the offence can be taken cognizance of once only and not repeatedly upon discovery of further particulars. He pointed out that under S. 319 of the Code even during the trial of an offence, if it appears from the evidence that any person other than the accused therein has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correct and deserves to be accepted. 5. Mr. Vashi then pointed out that in the instant case, not only did the first complaint filed by the complainant against Mahadu Gopal and others vide Criminal Case No. 745 of 1984 not disclose the fact that there were other unknown accused whose particulars were not available to the complainant at the time when the complaint was lodged, but that what is material is that the offences alleged in both the complaints i.e. Criminal Case No. 745 of 1984 against Mahadu Gopal and others and the complaint filed against the petitioners in Criminal Case No. 1004 of 1986 are identical. The counsel contends that by permitting the Magistrate to take cognizance of the complaint a second time, there is serious preju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advanced by Mr. Vashi. 6. Mr. Surana, learned counsel for the first respondent, contended that if the Court is persuaded to exercise its powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners, who are really the wrong doers according to the first respondent, would escape scot free. This is not correct. It would be open to the first respondent to show upon evidence in the trial of his first complaint, Criminal Case No. 745 of 1984, that the present petitioners are guilty of the offences alleged and persuade the Court to exercise its powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the Court is satisfied by the evidence led before it in the trial of Criminal Case No. 745 of 1984, that there is a case of o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
