DOCSLIB.ORG

SAMUELS JEWELERS, INC. Debtor. Chapter 11 Case No. 18

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SAMUELS JEWELERS, INC. Debtor. Chapter 11 Case No. 18 Case 18-11818-KJC Doc 142 Filed 08/27/18 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: Chapter 11 SAMUELS JEWELERS, INC.1 Case No. 18-11818 (KJC) Debtor. Requested Hearing date: September 13, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. (ET) Requested Objection Deadline: September 7, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. (ET) PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER DIRECTING THE APPOINTMENT OF AN EXAMINER PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. §1104(c) Punjab National Bank (“PNB”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby moves this Court (the “Motion”) for the entry of an order directing the appointment of an examiner in the above-captioned Chapter 11 case, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, under sections 105(a) and 1104(c) of title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532 (the “Bankruptcy Code”) and Rule 2007.1 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”): PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. PNB seeks the appointment of an examiner, pursuant to section 1104(d) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Debtor in this case is 100% owned by Gitanjali Gems, Ltd. (“Gitanjali”) whose chairman and director is Mehul Choksi (“Choksi”). Both Gitanjali and Choksi have been implicated in the largest bank fraud (the “Fraud”) in the history of the Republic of India. They have been indicted by Indian authorities, and Choksi is currently an international fugitive from justice.2 PNB is the largest victim of that Fraud. 1 The last four digits of the Debtor’s taxpayer identification number are 6316 and its address is 2914 Montopolis Drive, Suite 200, Austin, Texas 78741. 2 India Waiting on Interpol for Red Notice Against Fraud-Accused Mehul Choksi, The Daily Observer, https://antiguaobserver.com/india-waiting-on-interpol-for-red-notice-against-fraud-accused-mehul-choksi/ 01:23572343.4 Case 18-11818-KJC Doc 142 Filed 08/27/18 Page 2 of 16 2. The Debtor admits through its First Day Declaration that the Fraud was a major precipitating factor in the Debtor’s decision to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 11. The Debtor likewise admits that several of its former officers and directors were implicated in the Fraud, including Choksi (a director until February 2018), Nehal Modi (director and former CEO of the Debtor until 2015, and also the step-brother of Nirav Modi) and Sunil Varma (CFO and President until February 2018). Given these connections, it comes as no surprise that India’s Enforcement Directorate (“ED”) (an agency of the Indian government roughly analogous with the S.E.C.) has filed a criminal complaint alleging significant and troubling involvement of the Debtor and its agents in the Fraud. Nor is it surprising that PNB’s initial investigation has revealed suspicious transactions involving the Debtor. 3. This case has significant similarities and connections to In re Firestar Diamond, Inc., Case No. 18-bk-10509 (SHL) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) proceeding before the Honorable Sean Lane in New York. The debtors in those cases, Firestar Diamond, Inc., A. Jaffe, Inc., and Fantasy, Inc. (collectively, the “Firestar Debtors”) are indirectly owned by the other mastermind of the Fraud, Nirav Modi (“Modi”), one of Choksi’s nephews. Facing a similar situation, Judge Lane appointed an examiner early in the Firestar cases. Order Signed on 4/13/2018, Directing the Appointment of the Examiner, In re Firestar Diamond, Inc., Case No. 18-bk-10509 (SHL) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2018), ECF No. 103. Like the Debtor in this case, the Firestar Debtors cited the Fraud as a major factor in their filing for bankruptcy and attempted to proceed as though they were unconnected to the Fraud. As events unfolded, however, that facade of innocence collapsed as the Firestar Debtors’ President and former sole director invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, a Chapter 11 trustee was appointed, and the Examiner published its report making it clear the Firestar Debtors participated in the Fraud. The 01:23572343.4 -2- Case 18-11818-KJC Doc 142 Filed 08/27/18 Page 3 of 16 similarities between these cases – and the underlying fraud – underscores the compelling need for the appointment of an examiner in this case. 4. The Court should appoint an examiner in this case to ensure the integrity of these proceedings and allow a neutral third-party to assess the claims that might exist for and against the estate of the Debtor. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1334 and 157. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §157(A) as it relates to the administration of the Debtors’ estates. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. BACKGROUND A. Bankruptcy Proceedings 6. On August 7, 2018 (the “Petition Date”), the above-captioned debtor (the “Debtor”) filed its voluntary petition for protection under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code, thus commencing these proceedings (the “Chapter 11 Case”). In its petition, the Debtor estimated each of its assets and liabilities to be in the $100,000,000-$500,000,000 range. ECF No. 1. On August 8, 2018 the Court held a First Day Hearing, ECF No. 18, and on August 16, 2018 a Committee of Unsecured Creditors (“UCC”) was appointed. ECF No. 108. To date, the Debtor has continued in the possession and operation of its properties and businesses. B. The Fraud on PNB 7. PNB is the second largest government-owned bank in India. It learned early this year that it is the victim of the largest bank fraud in India’s history. Choksi and several of the entities he directly or indirectly controls (collectively, “Choksi Entities”), along with his nephew Modi and several of the entities Modi directly or indirectly controls (collectively, the “Modi 01:23572343.4 -3- Case 18-11818-KJC Doc 142 Filed 08/27/18 Page 4 of 16 Entities”), are the perpetrators of this fraud. See ECF No. 11, at ¶ 18. Choksi was chairman and director of Gitanjali, which wholly owns the Debtor. Chosksi, who is now an international fugitive from justice, also served as a director of the Debtor from 2008 until his resignation in February 2018, shortly after the Fraud was discovered. 8. To implement the Fraud, Choksi, the Choksi Entities and their representatives conspired to fraudulently obtain Letters of Undertaking (“LOUs”) and Foreign Letters of Credit (“FLCs”) from PNB. See Declaration of Sean O’Neal dated August 27, 2018 and filed contemporaneously herewith (the “O’Neal Decl.”), Ex. A (the “CBI Chargesheet”).3 An LOU is a guarantee by the issuing Indian bank that guarantees repayment of loans made to such bank customer(s) by a foreign lender, specifically, a foreign branch of an Indian bank. A bank issuing an LOU (here, PNB) agrees to pay to the foreign lender the full amount of the loan plus accrued interest if the importer (here, Choksi and the Choksi Entities) fails to pay back the foreign lender. FLCs function in much the same way. See id. at ¶¶ 1, 4, 8. 9. Beginning in or about March of 2015, the Choksi Entities, including Gitanjali, began obtaining fraudulent LOUs and FLCs from the Brady House, Mumbai branch of PNB. See id. at ¶ 1. Several PNB employees, including Gokulnath Shetty (“Shetty”), the deputy manager at the Brady House branch, and Manoj Hanumant Kharat (“Kharat”), a single window operator, conspired with the Choksi Entities to issue the LOUs and FLCs without the necessary underlying documentation or the pledging of collateral necessary to repay the amount of the LOUs and FLCs, and after the Choksi Entities had already reached credit limits on their accounts. Id. at ¶¶ 1, 8-9, 23, 27. 3 The chargesheet is akin to a criminal indictment. Both the CBI and the ED – agencies roughly analogous to the U.S.’s Federal Bureau of Investigation and Securities and Exchange Commission, respectively – filed charges against Choksi, Gitanjali and other Choksi Entities in relation to this Fraud. 01:23572343.4 -4- Case 18-11818-KJC Doc 142 Filed 08/27/18 Page 5 of 16 10. After being issued by PNB, the funds issued pursuant to the LOUs and FLCs were transmitted by these same bank employees through the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (“SWIFT”) system to the foreign branches of Indian banks. The SWIFT messages authorized the release of funds in the amount of the LOUs and FLCs for payment to the foreign “exporter/beneficiary” listed in the SWIFT messages for the goods listed therein. See id. at ¶¶ 9, 12, 15-18, 23. According to the LOUs, these funds should have been dispersed to the “exporter/beneficiary” to finance the import of goods into India; however, funds were dispersed to other Choksi Entities instead of to third-party exporters/suppliers and were not used for bona fide import/export purposes. See id. at ¶¶ 1, 12, 16-18, 26, 28. 11. Shetty, Kharat and others concealed the issuances of these LOUs and FLCs by not entering them, or entering much smaller amounts, into PNB’s Core Banking System (“CBS”) thus preventing PNB from uncovering the Fraud. Id. at ¶ 9-10, 15, 23, 25. When the Fraud finally was uncovered in January 2018, PNB referred the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”) (analogous to the Federal Bureau of Investigations in the U.S.) which filed formal charges against Choksi, Gitanjali and others in relation to the Fraud. Another agency, the ED, launched its own investigation and filed its own prosecution complaint in June of 2018.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Locating the Survivor in the Indian Criminal Justice System: Decoding the Law I
    Locating the Survivor in the Indian Criminal Justice System: Decoding the Law i Locating the Survivorin the Indian Criminal Justice System: Decoding the Law LAWYERS COLLECTIVE WOMEN’S RIGHTS INITIATIVE Contents Contents v Foreword ix Acknowledgments xi Abbreviations xiii Introduction I. Kinds of Offences and Cases 2 1. Bailable Offence 2 2. Non Bailable Offence 2 3. Cognisable Offences 2 4. Non Cognisable Offences 2 5. Cognisable Offences and Police Responsibility 3 6. Procedure for Trial of Cases 3 II. First Information Report 4 1. Process of Recording Complaint 4 2. Mandatory Reporting under Section 19 of the POCSO Act 4 3. Special Procedure for Children 5 4. Woman Officer to Record Information in Specified Offences 5 5. Special Process for Differently-abled Complainant 6 6. Non Registration of FIR 6 7. Registration of FIR and Territorial Jurisdiction 8 III. Magisterial Response 9 1. Remedy against Police Inaction 10 IV. Investigation 11 1. Steps in Investigation 12 2. Preliminary, Pre-FIR Inquiry by the Police 12 Locating the Survivor in the Indian Criminal Justice System: Decoding the Law v 3. Process of Investigation 13 4. Fair Police Investigation 14 5. Statement and Confessions 14 (i) Examination and statements of witnesses 14 (ii) Confessions to the magistrate 16 (iii) Recording the confession 16 (iv) Statements to the magistrate 16 (v) Statement of woman survivor 17 (vi) Statement of differently abled survivor 17 6. Medical Examination of the Survivor 17 (i) Examination only by consent 17 (ii) Medical examination of a child 17 (iii) Medical examination report 18 (iv) Medical treatment of a survivor 18 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Record of Proceedings SUPREME COURT
    1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION SUO MOTU WRIT(CRL.) NO.1 OF 2017 IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS O R D E R During the course of hearing of Criminal Appeal No.400/2006 and connected matters, Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants-complainant, pointed out certain common inadequacies and deficiencies in the course of trial adopted by the trial court while disposing of criminal cases. In particular, it was pointed out that though there are beneficial provisions in the Rules of some of the High Courts which ensure that certain documents such as list of witnesses and the list of exhibits/material objects referred to, are annexed to the judgment and order itself of the trial court, these features do not exist in Rules of some other High Courts. Undoubtedly, the judgments and orders of the trial court which have such lists annexed, can be appreciated much better by the appellate courts. Certain other matters were also pointed out by Mr. Basant, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants- complainant, during the course of arguments. He made the 2 following submissions : A. In the course of discussions at the Bar while considering this case, this Court had generally adverted to certain common inadequacies and imperfections that occur in the criminal trials in our country. I venture to suggest that in the interests of better administration of criminal justice and to usher in a certain amount of uniformity, and acceptance of best practices prevailing over various parts of India, this Court may consider issue of certain general guidelines to be followed across the board by all Criminal Courts in the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Government of India V Modi Judgment
    IN THE WESTMINSTER MAGISTRATES’ COURT BEFORE DISTRICT JUDGE (MC) SAM GOOZÉE Appropriate Judge The Government of India (Requesting State) V Nirav Deepak Modi (Requested Person) JUDGMENT Table of Contents Background & Chronology of Proceedings Page 2 The Challenges to Extradition Page 4 The Requests Page 5 Prima Facie case Page 9 Admissibility of evidence Page 14 Prima Face Case – CBI Request Page 18 Conclusions on Prima Facie Case – CBI Request Page 31 Conclusion on Prima Facie Case – ED Request Page 36 Prima Facie Case – CBI Supplementary Request Page 36 Conclusion on Prima Facie Case – CBI Supplementary Request Page 42 Extradition Offences Page 45 1 Human Rights Challenges – Article 6 ECHR Page 53 Conclusions Article 6 Challenge Page 58 Human Rights Challenges – Article 3 ECHR & s.91 EA 2003 Page 61 Conclusions Article 3 Challenge Page 74 Conclusions – s.91 EA 2003. Page 79 Procedural Requirements and Decision Page 80 Background and Chronology of proceedings 1. This is an extradition request submitted by the Government of India, the Requesting State(“GOI”) for the extradition of Nirav Deepak Modi, the Requested Person (NDM). The request is governed by the Provisions of Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 (“EA 2003”). India is a designated Part 2 country by virtue of the Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003. 2. The return of NDM, an Indian national, is sought for the purposes prosecution. On the 27th July 2018, the GOI issued a request for the extradition of NDM. Initially, NDM was subject to two sets of criminal proceedings. The first set of proceedings are brought by the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation (“the CBI case”).
    [Show full text]
  • BUDGET 2021 Response to the National Budget Statement
    BUDGET 2021 Response to the National Budget Statement Abstract How unlawful privatization of the people’s money to foreign friends of the finance minister, condoned by an unjust parliamentary majority, is destroying the economy of Dominica and creating unnecessary poverty, suffering and pain for the people. Hon. Lennox Linton Leader of the Opposition INTRODUCTION Citizens of Dominica, The 2021 National Budget is Government`s income and expense statement for the financial year July 1st, 2021 to June 30th, 2022. It entails how the government will raise its funds and where and how the funds will be used. Through the approval of Parliament, the budget provides Government with the money it needs to deliver its policies and run vital services in areas such as Health, Education, Economic Development, Housing, Livelihood Sustainability, Environment Protection and Public Infrastructure. The budget impacts the economy at large and the everyday lives of all Dominicans. In our Parliamentary Democracy it is a critical instrument of social justice. BUDGET DEBATE IN AN UNJUST PARLIAMENT As I reflected carefully on what I believe is our shared commitment across the parliamentary divide to build a prosperous, peaceful, secure and just society, a Magistrate’s concern in court on July 27th, 2021 kept coming back to me: “The Prosecution has brought the administration of justice in Dominica into disrepute”. In other words, those involved in regulating access to the criminal justice system and prosecuting criminal conduct in the public interest, in the 1 opinion of a sitting Magistrate, have brought the administration of justice into disrepute. We want prosperity, peace, security and justice.
    [Show full text]
  • SUPREME COURT of INDIA Girish Sharma Vs. the State Of
    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Girish Sharma Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh Crl.A.No.939-940 of 2017 (Adarsh Kumar Goel and Uday Umesh Lalit,JJ.,) 23.08.2017 ORDER 1. On 12th February, 2015, FIR No.9/2015 was registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau and Economic Offences Wing under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegation was that huge amount was recovered from possession of accused which was as a of corruption. The FIR was against 27 persons but after investigation chargesheet was filed against 16 persons. The persons against whom the chargesheet was filed included senior officers of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation. 2. During investigation, statements of three of the accused mentioned in the FIR, namely, Girish Sharma, Arvind Singh Dhruv and Jeet Ram Yadav, who are appellants before us, were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. They were not arrayed as accused but were cited as witnesses in the chargesheet. After the court took cognizance against the accused named in the chargesheet, some of the accused made applications under Section 193/319 Cr.P.C. to summon the above three persons, Girish Sharma, Arvind Singh Dhruv and Jeet Ram Yadav as accused. 3. The trial court rejected the said applications but the matter was carried in revision before the High Court and the High Court allowed the summoning. The reason given by the High Court in the order of summoning is that procedure under Section 306 Cr.P.C. was not followed which was the only procedure available under the Criminal Procedure Code to make an accused a witness, after grant of pardon with Court’s permission.
    [Show full text]
  • SAMUELS JEWELERS, INC.,1 Case No
    Case 18-11818-KJC Doc 669 Filed 02/20/19 Page 1 of 136 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: Chapter 11 SAMUELS JEWELERS, INC.,1 Case No. 18-11818 (KJC) Debtor. PHASE I REPORT OF JOHN J. CARNEY, EXAMINER LANDIS RATH & COBB LLP BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Adam G. Landis (No. 3407) Jorian L. Rose Jennifer L. Cree (No. 5919) Tracy Cole 919 North Market Street, Suite 1800 Susrut A. Carpenter Wilmington, DE 19801 Jason I. Blanchard Telephone: (302) 467-4400 Lauren P. Lyster Facsimile: (302) 467-4450 45 Rockefeller Plaza Email: [email protected] New York, New York 10111 [email protected] Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 Delaware Counsel to John J. Carney, Esq., Email: [email protected] as Examiner [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel to John J. Carney, Esq., as Examiner BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP ALVAREZ AND MARSAL DISPUTES John J. Carney AND INVESTIGATIONS, LLC 45 Rockefeller Plaza William B. Waldie New York, New York 10111 Richard Bunyan Telephone: (212) 589-4200 600 Madison Avenue Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 New York, New York 10022 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (212) 763-9568 Examiner Financial Advisor to the Examiner, John J. Carney February 20, 2019 1 The last four digits of the Debtor’s federal tax identification number are 6316. The Debtor’s mailing address is 2914 Montopolis Drive, Suite 200, Austin, Texas 78741. {1219.001-W0054389.} Case 18-11818-KJC Doc 669 Filed 02/20/19 Page 2 of 136 TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents I.
    [Show full text]
  • Problems in the Criminal Investigation with Reference to Increasing Acquittals: a Study of Criminal Law and Practice in ANDHRA PRADESH
    Problems in the criminal investigation with reference to increasing acquittals: A Study of Criminal Law and Practice IN ANDHRA PRADESH Submitted by Dr.K.V.K.Santhy Co-ordinator NALSAR University of Law Justice City, Shameerpet – 500 078 R.R.District, Andhra Pradesh, India Problems in the criminal investigation with reference to increasing acquittals: A Study of Criminal Law and Practice Research Team Project Director : Professor Veer Singh, Vice Chancellor, NALSAR, University of Law Project Coordinator : Dr. KVK Santhy, Assistant Professor, (Criminal Law) NALSAR, University of Law Project Chief Executive : Prof. Madabhushi Sridhar, NALSAR NALSAR, University of Law Researcher : Mr.D.Balakrishna, Asst.Professor of Law NALSAR, University of Law Student Researchers : Ms.Nidhi Malik, BA LLB (Hons.) 5th year Ms.Sruthi Namburi, BA LLB (Hons.) 3rd year Ms.Arushi Garg, BA LLB (Hons.) 3rd year Ms.Shuchita Thapar, BA LLB (Hons.) 3rd year Ms.Harmanpreet Kaur, BA LLB (Hons.) 3rd year Ms.Himabindu Killi, BA LLB (Hons.) 3rd year Ms. Prianca Ravichander, BA LLB (Hons.) 3rd year Ms.Prarthana Vaidya, BA LLB (Hons.) 3rd year Acknowledgements We are greatly indebted to BPRD (Govt. of India) for giving this opportunity to work upon an important and contemporary topic defects in the investigation. We are grateful to Honorable Sri. Justice B.Chandra Kumar, Judge , High Court of Andhra Pradesh, and Honorable Sri. Justice Goda Raghuram, Judge, High Court of Andhra Pradesh for giving us valuable suggestions to improve the system of investigation. We are highly thankful to Dr. Tapan Chakraborthy, Asst Director, BPRD for the constant guidance and encouragement provided to us all through the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter III Enquiry and Trial by Magistrate Complaints 1. As Soon
    Chapter III Enquiry And Trial by Magistrate Complaints 1. As soon as the Complaints/Charge-sheet (other than that for petty offence), is filed in the Court, it shall be examined with reference to the following points :- (1) Whether the Charge-sheet/Complaint is filed in the Court having jurisdiction (2) Whether the Charge-sheet/Complaint is filed within the prescribed period of limitation. (3) (a)Whether a sanction of any authority is necessary under the law for launching the prosecution. (b) If yes, is it obtained at the prescribed point of time and from the prescribed authority. (c) Whether the original Order of sanction or a copy of the same is produced as required by law. (4) (a) Whether the names and addresses of Complainant / accused and witnesses are properly mentioned; (b) Whether the accused is juvenile and as such, is it necessary to deal with accused under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. (5) Whether the identification marks of the accused are furnished in Police Cases. (6) Whether the accused was arrested and released on bail before launching the prosecution, whether the dates of his arrest and release are mentioned in the Charge-sheet/ Complaint and the bail bond (if not already in custody of the Court), is attached to the case papers. (7) Whether the accused is released by the Court on bail before launching the prosecution. - (a) whether the date of such release is mentioned in the Charge-sheet ; and (b) whether the bail papers are available in Court records (attach the bail papers to the case.).
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C
    1 A.F.R. Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2110 of 2021 Applicant :- Shivam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lakshman Singh Hon'ble Siddharth,J. 1) Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. in the Court today is taken on record. 2) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3) Order on Criminal Misc. Exemption Application This exemption application is allowed. 4) Order on Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant, Shivam, in Case Crime No. 16 of 2020, under Sections- 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station- Churkhi, District- Jalaun at post-cognizance stage. 5) Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required. 2 6) The allegation in the F.I.R is that the informant is a newsman.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Ref.Pdf
    Table of Contents (Nominal) CONTENTS Page No. Chapter 1. Introduction 1-16 Chapter 2. Data Analysis 17-89 Chapter 3: Major findings 90-117 Chapter 4: How long the Wheels of Justice shall hold 118-144 on for appearance of the accused? Chapter 5: Whose case is it in any way? Police, 145-166 Prosecution or the Victim Chapter 6 Can there be a time frame for completing 167-175 Investigation? Chapter 7 Recommendations 176-182 i Table of Contents (Detailed) Chapter Page No. CONTENTS No. List of Abbreviations vii List of Cases viii - x List of Tables xi Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1-16 A. What amounts to delay? 7-13 B. Objectives of the Study 14 C. Limitations of the Study 14 D. Methodology 14-16 Chapter 2 DATA ANALYSIS 17-89 A. Stage I: Analysis of Form 1 17-29 B. State II: Analysis of Form 2, 3 and 4 30-40 C. Stage III: Sample Study of life cycle of 41-49 pending and disposed of cases D. Stage IV: Questionnaires 50-89 Chapter 3 MAJOR FINDINGS 90-117 A. Non-appearance of the accused at 90-95 different stages of Trial B. Fall out of absconding on criminal 95-98 ii adjudication C. Procedural and penal safeguards to 98-102 check and deal with non-appearance of the accused D. How far Sec.299 Cr.P.C been 102-107 effective? E. Avoidable delays at the stage of 107-111 commitment of cases to the court of sessions F. Delay at the stage of Prosecution 111-116 Evidence G.
    [Show full text]
  • Reportable in the Supreme Court of India Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Criminal Appeal No
    REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1121 OF 2016 Anwar Ali and another ¼Appellants Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh ¼Respondents J U D G M E N T M.R. SHAH, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 20.09.2016 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 2012, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent ± The State of Himachal Pradesh and has reversed the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and consequently has convicted the 1 appellants ± original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34, 392, 201 and 420, IPC and has sentenced the appellants herein ± original accused to undergo life imprisonment for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34, IPC, the appellants ± original accused have preferred the present appeal. 2. That the appellants herein ± original accused were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34, 392, 420 and 201, IPC for having committed the murder of one Deepak. That the dead body of the deceased was found on 2.9.2010 near bypass Bihali Road, Chandigarh. That the dead body was seen by one Jashwinder Singh, PW4, who informed the police station, Bhunter. On receiving such information, the police came on the spot; recorded the statement of PW4; prepared Rukka and sent the same through Constable Pushparaj, PW2 to police station, Bhunter. FIR was registered by Head Constable Tara Chand.
    [Show full text]
  • Jury Report.Cdr
    1st Peoples’ Tribunal on I A Report of the Jury T for C R for of P/C 1 Acknowledgments: Md. Adeeb Ajit Sahi and Mayur Suresh Jinee Lokaneeta Usha Ramanathan 2 PART I The Innocence Network organized its first Peoples’ Tribunal on Acquied Innocents on 2nd October 2016 at Delhi. We were called upon to serve as members of the Jury. On behalf of the public, we heard the testimonies of those who had been charged with terror crimes, and had been acquied. [See Annexure 1 for full list of those who presented their testimonies] All of those who deposed had spent varying number of years in prison – ranging from three years to 23 years. While some had been acquied by the lower courts itself, for many the ordeal lasted much longer as their convictions were overturned only by the highest court of the land. The testimonies were uniformly distressing and did not fail to move anyone who heard those stories of lives destroyed by years of wrongful incarceration. In testimony after testimony, we heard of illegal and wrongful detention, torture in police custody, forced confessions extracted under duress, long incarceration, repeated denial of bail, to be acquied finally years after their arrest. One of the most egregious case that the Jury heard was of TADA convict Md. Nisaruddin. Nisar spent 23 years in jail, and his case presents us with all that is wrong with the criminal justice system when it comes to dealing with terror cases. Arrested by Hyderabad police in January 1994 for carrying out multiple train bombings that has taken place across the country in December 1993, Nisar was kept in illegal detention for over a month.
    [Show full text]