Pramod Aggarwal & Anr v. State & Anr

ORDER

29.07.2013 Petitioners'prayerto get four complaintsundervariousprovisions of the Factories Act transferred to some other court stands declined vide impugnedorderof27^ May, 2013,whichis assailedin thispetition. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners have been already convicted by trial court in FIR case for the offence under Section 285/304Aof IPC on the strengthof evidenceof star witness {PW-3)and the same very witness is also a witness in the proceedings under the Factories Act in which petitioners are accused and the apprehension expressed is that since petitioners already stands convicted in the FIR case, so, trial court would convict them in these four complaints under the Factories Act as well. TKP.(CRL.) 37/2013 Page 1 To saythe least,the apprehensionexpressedby learnedcounselfor petitioners' is misplaced.Needlessto say that the four complaintsunder the Factories Actpendingagainstpetitionerwouldbe decidedby the trial court strictly on merits uninfluenced by the decision rendered in the criminal case, ' With aforesaid observation, this petition and the application'are dismissed. (SUNIL GAUR) Judge JULY 29,2013 s TR.P.(CEL.)37/2013 ^

$-29 + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI TR.P.(CRL.) 37/2013 8cCrl.M.A. 11138/2013 PRAMOD AGGARWAL & ANR Petitioners Through: Counsel{appearancenotgiven) versus STATE & ANR Through: Respondents Mr. Mukesh Gupta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI Samrat Khatiyan CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR