Sarvesh Rai vs. The State Of Ap And Anr
Facts
The petitioner, Sarvesh Rai, a partner in Global Business Industries, filed a criminal petition before the Gauhati High Court. This followed the rejection of his application by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, to modify an earlier order. The original order, dated 04.07.2024, was passed in BA No. 209/2024, arising from FIR No. 39 dated 05.04.2024, registered under Sections 407/420 of the Indian Penal Code at Naharlagun Police Station. The petitioner had deposited Rs. 6,68,944.00 and sought more time to pay 50% of the total amount as directed by the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge's subsequent order, dated 05.09.2024, in IA No. 292/2024, had not considered the petitioner's application for modification.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner deserves an opportunity to pay the entire 50% of the total amount as directed by the learned trial court. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that he had already deposited a substantial sum and required more time to comply fully. Consequently, the impugned order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, was set aside. The petitioner was granted six months' time to pay the entire 50% of the total amount. Thereafter, the trial court was directed to consider the petitioner's further prayers. The petitioner was also allowed to remain on the previous bail granted on 04.07.2024. The criminal petition was disposed of with these directions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an extension of time to deposit 50% of the total amount as directed by the learned Sessions Judge, considering his partial deposit and request for more time? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that he had already deposited a significant amount (Rs. 6,68,944.00) and required additional time to fulfill the directive of paying 50% of the total amount as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (The State of AP and Anr) on this issue. The Public Prosecutor for Arunachal Pradesh was heard, but their submissions on this point are not detailed.
Sections Cited
Section 439 CrPC, Section 482 CrPC, Section 407 IPC, Section 420 IPC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 10.09.2024
Heard Ms. Jyoti Zongluju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Tsering, learned Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh. This application has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Shri Sarvesh Rai, under section 439 CrPC and 483 of the BNSS,2023 read with section 482 CrPC and 528 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking medication of the order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupi
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.