Site navigation

In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi (Supreme Court, 1 December 1982), did quashing…

In Ram Kishan Rohtagi the Supreme Court quashed the complaint against the directors because it did not show their responsibility for the offence merely from their office. It…

Choose your answer

In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi (Supreme Court, 1 December 1982), did quashing the proceedings against the directors prevent later action under CrPC section 319 on sufficient additional evidence?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer A

In Ram Kishan Rohtagi the Supreme Court quashed the complaint against the directors because it did not show their responsibility for the offence merely from their office. It added that if evidence at the trial disclosed their involvement, the court could summon them under CrPC s.319 (now section 358 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), a power to be used sparingly and only for compelling reasons; the quashing was not an acquittal on the merits.

Practice for these exams

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic