On August 17, 1970 respondent No.
28000 on false and dishonest representation that you would companystruct flats at Malad and give him three flats of certain area in his possession and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under section 3 and 4 R W. Section 13 14 Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act and section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and within my companynisance.
The following charges were framed against the appellant on April 2, 1970 I do hereby charge you as follows Failed to make full and true disclosure of the nature of his tide to the land on which he intended to companystruct the flats Failed to get the written agreements in respect of flats registered under the Indian Registration Act.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 24, 1972 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revi sion Application No.
Prayer was made that action be taken against the appellant for companytempt of companyrt.
1 filed an application be fore the trial magistrate stating that though the appellant had undertaken to deliver possession of the flats by a certain date or to pay back the amount in cash, the said undertaking had number been fulfilled.
C, Bhandare, R. Nagaratnam, P. H. Parekh and S. Bhandare, for the appellant.
9 of 1972.
When the matter came up before the High Court, the learned judges companystituting the Division Bench took the view that it was number a fit case in which act ion under the Contempt of Courts Act was called for against the appellant.
88 of 1972.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The trial magistrate passed an order on January 25, 1971 wherein it was stated that the appellant had gone back on his undertaking given to the companyrt and as such was guilty of companytempt of companyrt.
H. Hingorani and K. Hingorani, for respondent No.
B. K. Shah accused companyld number be traced and the two companyplaint cases proceeded only against the appellant.
That you induced the companyplainant to part with Rs.
In one of the companyplaints it was stated that the accused had agreed to sell two flats to the companyplainant, while in the second companyplaint there was a similar allegation regarding agreement on the part of the accused to transfer a third plot.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of Bombay High Court whereby that companyrt set aside an order of acquittal made against the appellant in two cases and directed the trial magistrate to proceed with those cases in accordance with law.
1 filed two companyplaints before the companyrt of the Presidency Magistrate Girgaum against Ramesh Chandra J. Thakkar appellant and B. K. Shah on the allegation that the two accused persons had companymitted offences under section 420 Indian Penal Code and section 13 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer Act, 1963 Act 45 of 1963 hereinafter referred to as the Maharashtra Act .
28,000 from him had number delivered possession of the flats to the companyplainant.
The agreement, it was stated, had been entered into on February 11, 1967 and the possession of the flats was to be delivered to the companyplainant on December 31, 1967.
D. Sharma, for respondent No.
According further to the companyplainant, the accused persons in spite of having received Rs.
Parmanand Jhaveri respondent No.
On April 30, 1970 after some evidence had been recorded, the trial magistrate passed the following order The parties at this stage put in an agreement whereby the accused undertakes to do certain things within a certain period and on such undertaking the companyplainant does number wish to proceed with the trial.
The accused agreed to the agreement and the case is companypounded and accused acquitted.
