3, including parents, held guilty for killing 3-year-old girl in UP

New Delhi- Three people, including the parents, were held guilty for murdering a three-year-old girl by a court here.



Additional District and Sessions Judge Ajay Kumar held Shamim, the father of the girl, his wife Khushnaseeb and their friend Zahir Abbas guilty under sections 302 (murder) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) yesterday and reserved the order on the quantum of punishment till August 28.

According to government lawyer Ritu Choudhary, three-year-old Liba was killed by the convicts by slitting her throat in Nagla Bajurg village under the Bhopa police station in the district on May 2.

Choudhary submitted before the court that the crime was committed by the convicts with a design to implicate Shamim’s brother over an old enmity.

After committing the crime, Shamim had lodged a police complaint against his brother for kidnapping his daughter.

During investigation, Shamim, Khushnaseeb and Abbas’s involvement in the crime came to light and the police filed the chargesheet in the case within 14 days.

The court was hearing the case on a daily basis and pronounced its verdict within two-and-a-half months.

29-yr-old road rage case; Charges filed against UP minister

Lucknow:  Charges framed today against Mohsin Raza alias Arshad, a minister in the BJP-led government by a court in Uttar Pradesh, in connection with a 29-year-old road rage case.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nirbhay Prakash also framed charges against co-accused Akbar and fixed August 4 for the recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

The accused were present in the court at the time of framing of charges.
A truck driver, Lallan, had lodged an FIR at the Wazirganj police station on August 4, 1989, alleging that the two accused had suddenly come in front of his truck and though no one was hurt, they had stopped his vehicle and assaulted and abused him.
The police had filed a chargesheet against the duo on August 4, 1990 under sections 323, 336, 504 and 506 of the IPC.
The court could not frame charges all these years as the accused were not appearing before it.

Court discharges Abhishek Verma in graft case

Court discharges Abhishek Verma in graft case
Court discharges Abhishek Verma in graft case

Arms dealer Abhishek Verma, his wife and others were discharged by special court today in a CBI case involving alleged payments to some officials to influence the Defence Ministry to keep a German firm out of the government’s blacklist.

Special CBI Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna also discharged Verma and his Romanian wife Anca Verma in a money laundering case filed by Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the matter.

The CBI had filed its charge sheet against Verma, his wife, Rheinmetall Air Defence (RAD) and its top official Gerhard Hoy.

The court discharged them saying that there was not enough evidence to put them on trial in the two cases.

According to the CBI, RAD had transferred USD 5,30,000 to a New York bank account belonging to Ganton Ltd, a US-based company owned by Verma.

Verma had promised to stall the blacklisting process in exchange for money, according to the police chargesheet.

The agency had told the court that it had traced banking transactions from Europe to the US, linking Verma and his associates with the German arms conglomerate.

ED had filed a separate case of money laundering against the couple on the basis of the CBI complaint.

The German company’s troubles started in 2009 when the CBI registered an FIR accusing it of bribing the then Director General of the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) to secure a contract for supply air defence guns to the Indian Army.

“On the basis of investigation of this (2009) case, blacklisting of RAD (Rheinmetall) was recommended by CBI. When this matter of blacklisting was under process, Abhishek Verma got in touch with the representatives of RAD and assured them of help by influencing the public servants to stall the process of aforesaid blacklisting of RAD,” the CBI chargesheet said.

( Source – PTI )

Person not named in FIR, charge sheet can be tried: SC

supreme courtThe Supreme Court said Friday that someone whose name does not figure either in an FIR or a chargesheet but whose role in an alleged crime surfaces during the course of a trial would be subjected to the said trial.

A constitution bench of Chief Justice P Sathasivam, Justice BS Chauhan, Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai, Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice SA Bobde said that the evidence against such an accused would be sufficient when evidence was being recorded and not at the stage of cross-examination of witnesses.

The court observation came while addressing five questions referred to it by a three- judge bench Dec 8, 2011, on the stage at which Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) would come into play to try a person whose role in a crime surfaces during the course of a trial and at what stage would the evidence be read against such an accused.

Section 319 of the CrPC spells out the proviso for the joint trial of a person, who though not been named as an accused, appears, during the course of investigation or trial, to have committed a crime.

“Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused 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 appears to have committed,” Section 319 (1) says.

The five questions addressed the constitution bench were:

* At what stage can the power under Section 319 can be exercised?

* Does the word “evidence” used in Section 319 (1) only mean evidence tested by cross-examination or can the court exercise this power even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned?

* Has the word “evidence” in Section 319 (1) been used in a comprehensive sense and does it include the evidence collected during the investigation or is it limited to the evidence recorded during the trial?

* What is the nature of satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 to arraign an accused? Can this power be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will, in all likelihood, be convicted?

* Does the power under Section 319 extend to persons not named in the FIR or named in the FIR but not charged or who have been discharged?

(Source: IANS)

Income Tax officer gets five years in jail in graft case

A former Assistant Commissioner of Income tax convicted by the special CBI court for demanding and accepting bribe from an assessee and sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment.

According to CBI, accused Rajeev Kumar demanded Rs 25,000 from the complainant in March 1998 to settle a tax claim for year 1995-1996.

The CBI filed the chargesheet in 2000 after he was booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

 

 

CBI files chargesheet in 2G spectrum case

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Saturday filed its first chargesheet in the 2G spectrum scam . The chargesheet was filed in the special court of CBI judge O.P. Saini. Former Telecom minister A Raja has been charged with criminal conspiracy, forgery, cheating and corruption.

Raja’s private secretary R K Chandolia, former telecom secretary Siddharth Behura and Swan Telecom promoter Shahid Balwa have also been chargesheeted. Other corporate honchos chargesheeted in the case are Swan Telecom director Vinod Goenka, Director Unitech Wireless Sanjay Chandra.

Nine persons and three companies have been chargesheeted under various provisions of IPC including cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy and under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

CBI sources, however, said the extent of loss to the state exchequer may not be included in this chargesheet as the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) was yet to complete the process of ascertaining the loss on allocation of spectrum to all operators between 2001 and 2008.

The CBI had last year informed the apex court that it would be filing the first set of charge sheet by March 31 which will include the investigations made by the agency as well as by the Enforcement Directorate in the case. But it sought two more days time in the light of some new developments.