9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he FIR, the accused was appointed as Financial Controller-cum-Company Secretary of Ralson India Limited, Ludhiana, and joined the company in that capacity on November 29, 1985. During the course of his employment, he used to get the signatures of Shri Sanjeev Pahwa, managing director, on blank cheques and transfer advices. The abuse of position by the accused came to light when, as a result of the raid on his premises by the Income-tax Department, FDRs amounting to Rs. 55,33,129, blank cheques and transfer advices were seized from the possession of the accused. On examining the accounts of the company, the management found that the accused had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 1.29 lakhs from the accounts of the company from the Punjab National ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evision petition was pending, the Income-tax Department also filed an application before the Additional Sessions Judge pleading that the trial court be directed to release the money along with the Indira Vikas Patras to the Income-tax Department. The revision petition filed by respondent No. 1 was opposed on the ground that the same is time-barred. When this objection was raised, respondent No. 1 filed an application for condoning the delay. After hearing the parties, the Additional Sessions Judge, in the interest of justice, condoned the delay in filing the revision petition and held that there are sufficient grounds for condoning the delay in filing the revision petition. The application filed by the Income-tax Department was held to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt regarding the payment of the amount at the conclusion of the trial. The Additional Sessions Judge further held that in case the accused (petitioner) is found to be entitled to the payment of the amount, the company shall be liable to pay the amount along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum for the period of retention of the amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order dated September 24, 1993, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, is illegal and without jurisdiction. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also erred in condoning the delay in filing the revision petition. Learned counsel for respondent N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arch 2, 1993. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner shows that he was simply interested in opposing the application of the company for superdari of the amount of Rs. 40,58,412. The interest of the petitioner has been properly safeguarded by the learned Additional Sessions judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that in case the accused (petitioner) is found to be entitled to the payment of the amount, the company shall be liable to pay the amount along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum for the period of retention of the amount. Therefore, no injustice has been done to the petitioner. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
