CRL.A. NO. 243 of 2005 1

ITEM NO.113               COURT NO.7             SECTION IIA

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 243 OF 2005

RAJESH CHARI                                      Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

ZUARI STRUCTURAL WORKS                            Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for suspension of sentence and office report)

Date: 12/08/2010  This Appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARJIT SINGH BEDI         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.K. PRASAD

For Appellant(s)    Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Adv.                     Mr. Rauf Rahim, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

          UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                O R D E R  

The appeal is partly allowed in terms of the  

signed order.

(KALYANI GUPTA) SR. P.A.

(VINOD KULVI) COURT MASTER

CRL.A. NO. 243 of 2005 2

[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE.]

CRL.A. NO. 243 of 2005 3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  243 OF 2005

     RAJESH CHARI      ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS   

    ZUARI STRUCTURAL WORKS     ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. On  11th January,  2007,  this  Court  made  the  

following order:

“Let  fresh  notice  be  issued  to  the respondent.

 Office  is  directed  to  sent  notice by registered post as well.

 Learned  counsel  for  the  Appellant has made a statement that the  appellant  has  deposited  an  amount  of  Rs.  45,000/-.   The  appellant  is  directed to file an affidavit clearly  stating  whether  the  said  amount  has  been deposited and also submit proof of  the deposit allegedly made.

List after one month.” 2. In response to the order, the appellant has also  

filed an affidavit dated 14th February, 2007  and in  

paragraph 5 thereof, it has been averred that a sum of  

Rs. 49,094/- which was the amount computed after adding  

the interest to Rs. 45,000/- that is the amount of the  

cheque, had been deposited by the appellant in the High  

Court and that the respondent had received the said  

amount on 24th October, 2005.  We also see that despite

CRL.A. NO. 243 of 2005 4

service the respondent has not put in appearance.  In  

this background, we feel that the ends of justice would  

be met if we maintain the conviction but set aside the  

sentence of imprisonment.  We make an order in the  

above terms.

3. The appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed.

    ..................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ..................J      [C.K. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI AUGUST 12, 2010.