P.C. However, in this case, by mistake, provision of law under which the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody was mentioned as Section 167 2 Cr.
In fact for remanding an accused in custody against whom charge sheet has already been filed and an application for remand is number required.
There were five accused against whom allegations were made by the companyplainant.
ACMM, Egmore Chennai issued an open ended number bailable warrant of his arrest and a Red Corner Notice RCN has been issued against him through INTERPOL for locating him.
All the other accused named in the first information report had been sent for trial.
Name of one of the companypanies named in the first information report, viz.,
P.C. in the remand report.
Indisputably, Appellant was named therein.
The Central Bureau of Investigation CBI lodged a first information report against the appellant and three companypanies registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on a companyplaint made by the Securities and Exchange Board of India.
The CBI moved the High Court thereagainst.
Dinesh Dalmia, the then Managing Director Custodian of properties, including shares, of M s. DSQ Software Ltd., fraudulently got dematerialized un allotted and unlisted share of DSQ Software Ltd. In the name of three entities namely New Vision Investment Ltd., UK Dinesh Dalmia Technology Trust and Dr. Suryanil Ghosh, Trustee Softec Corporation and thereafter these shares were sold in the market and the proceeds of sale of said shares were credited in the accounts of M s. DSQ Holdings Ltd., M s. Hulda Properties and Trade Ltd. and M s. Powerflow Holding and Trading Pvt.
He was, however, evading arrest.
He had gone to the United States.
M s. DSQ Software Ltd., has been shown in Column No.
Ltd. and thereby dishonestly misappropriated and cheated investors including existing share holders and obtained undue gain to the tune of Rs.
Appellant was proceeded against for companymission of offences under Sections 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned Magistrate by an order dated 14.02.2005, on a prayer made in that behalf by the CBI, issued a number bailable warrant of arrest against him.
513 of 2007 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
A warrant of arrest had already been issued against him.
A revision application filed by the appellant herein before the learned Sessions Judge was allowed inter alia relying on or on the basis of the decision of this Court in State Through CBI v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar and Others 2000 10 SCC 438 stating Taking into companysideration of all these facts and circumstances of the case and principle of law laid down by the Honble Apex Court I feel that in view of the positive companyduct of the respondent in relying upon Section 167 2 Cr.
Hence this companyrt is inclined to state that the petitioner was remanded to police custody u s 167 2 Cr.
P.C. and thereafter was remanded to judicial custody u s 309 Cr.
In the said charge sheet, it was stated Investigation has revealed that Sh.
One of the companypanies was number sent for trial as numberhing was found against it.
P.C. The learned Magistrate further took numbere of the fact that two other cases have been registered against him by the Calcutta Police.
P.C. in all their applications up to the filing of the bail application , the petitioner can also rely upon it and seek necessary orders thereunder, that the respondent is number estopped from pleading opposite to their own previous companyduct and that Section 309 2 cannot be applied to a person like the petitioner, who was arrested in the companyrse of further investigation.
