Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
A.H. Joshi, J. 1. Appellant herein was charged in Sessions Case No. 3 of 2004 by 4th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, for pouring kerosene on his wife Sangita, setting her fire on 10.10.2003, at 4.15 p.m. and murdering her under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. CASE OF PROSECUTION : 2. The story as was put forward by prosecution :- On 10.10.2003 victim Sangita and accused Manik were present in their house. Accused had arrived at his house in a drunken state. Over some quarrel the accused got enraged due to the expression of the wife Sangita. He poured kerosene on her person and ignited her by a match stick. Sangita shouted. The accused poured water on her and extinguished the fire. Due to shouts of Sangita neighbours came up. One woman amongst the neighbours called Sangita's mother who arrived soon. One woman and Sangita's mother took Sangita to hospital. Sangita was admitted, examined and was treated by the Dr. Rahul Hatorkar the Medical Officer. Sangita gave oral dying d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
A.H. Joshi, J. The appellant herein was named as accused in crime No.I-67/2010 of Shirdi police station. After investigation charge sheet was filed and upon committal, charge for offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for murdering Shreya Ajit Mehta in a room in Hotel Guru Prasad, in front of S.T. Stand at Shirdi was framed in Sessions Case No.25/2010. 2. Prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. 3. The case is based on recovery of weapon at the behest of the accused u/s 27 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Prosecution had relied on PW-5 Tukaram Kadam, a waiter in the hotel Guru Prasad where the room was occupied by the accused and deceased Shreya. This witness has failed to identify the accused even before the Court. Any Test Identification parade was not conducted. 4. The prosecution has not proved the register maintained in the hotel meant for recording occupation and vacation of room by boarders. The signature of the accused, purportedly made in the said register...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: (A.H. Joshi, J.) 1. In both these petitions, the challenge is common. 2. The prayer is for quashing first information report in C.R. No.98 of 2008, registered at M.I.D.C. Police Station, Latur, for offences punishable under sections 420, 406 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and charge-sheet filed in furtherance thereto. 3. Both these petitions were heard at length. 4. The petitions had remained pending for admission hearing for a considerable period. Hence, by consent of parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard. 5. Though the petitions, as originally filed, consisted of challenge to the charge-sheet, due to the advice rendered to them, the petitioners they have amended the petitions and incorporated challenge to the first information report. In view of this development, the petitions were listed before us. 6. As we have seen, the first information report consists of disclosure that it is registered under sections 420, 406 and 434 of the Indian Pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
A.H. Joshi, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent, finally. 2. By this application, the applicant prays for quashing of Crime No. 91 of 2012 dated 05.10.2012, registered at Police Station, Nilanga District Latur for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The applicant's case and grievance in summary is as follows:- (i) Wife of respondent no. 2 died during treatment due to effect of the venom of scorpion bite. (ii) The Police have registered the offence in that regard against the applicant under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) While registering the offence, the procedure directed through two reported judgments of Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. The State of Punjab and others reported in 2005 AIR SC W 3685 and Martin F. D'Souza Vs. Mohd Ishfaq reported in 2009 AIR SCW 1807 and guidelines as prescribed and laid down by the Government of Maharashtra through Government Resolution dated 26th March, 2010 are ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: Heard both sides. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. Aggrieved by rejection of application for permission to carry further investigation in the crime under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the State has preferred present Criminal Revision Application. 3. In sum and substance, the allegations in Sessions Case No.107 of 2008 pending on the file of Addl. Sessions Judge, Parbhani are that the present respondents - accused had cheated the son of complainant by issuing bogus appointment order due to which, son of complainant has committed suicide. 4. Initially, charge sheet was submitted only for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution, upon committal of the case, filed application for addition of charge for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code i.e. for cheating by taking amount of Rs.One lac for giving service to the son of complaina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The respondent no.1 is the complainant in STC No. 2821/2000 before the 5th Judicial Magistrate F.C. Dhule. The applicant in Cri.Rev.Appl.No.83/2010 is the original accused. He is applicant in present criminal revision. He is E.N.T. Surgeon and is running his clinic at Malegaon, Dist.Nasik. 3. The complainant had lodged a complaint was u/s. 138 of the N.I.Act towards dishonour of cheque issued by the accused and failure in making the payment by the accused inspite of notice. The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer SI for 2 months and to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.55,000/-. 4. The revision applicant preferred an appeal before the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Dhule against his conviction. The appeal was dismissed. Hence the accused has approached this Court, challenging the judgment passed by the Appellate Court by filing Cri.Rev.No.83/2010. 5. The complainant is aggrieved as the sentence is not adequat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent. 2. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. 3. Respondents no.2 to 5 were tried before Judicial Magistrate First Class at Selu for offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 325, 323, 504 read with sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code, in Regular Criminal Case No.60 of 2004. It appears that the charge-sheet in respect of fifth accused, namely, Kalyan Bhagwan Kharat was submitted to the Juvenile Court. 4. At the conclusion of the trial, learned Magistrate convicted respondents no.2 to 5 for offence punishable under sections 323 and 324 read with sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents no.2 to 5 of the offence punishable under section 504 read with sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. However, instead of sentencing the respondents no.2 to 5, directed their release on furnishing a bond of good behaviour of Rs.1,000/- each with one surety for good behaviour for a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by recording of the acquittal of the present respondent of the offences punishable under section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, by the learned Special Judge, Beed in Special Case No.21/2000 by his judgment and order dated 06-05-2006, the State has preferred the present appeal. 3. The allegations, in nutshell, are as under :. That, complainant i.e. PW1 Baban Shrikhande wanted that the agricultural land standing on the name of his deceased father should be mutated in his name. The accused/respondent was the then Talathi of concerned village Mandwa. The complainant, therefore, approached him on 12-12-1999 for doing the needful. At that time, the respondent/accused made a demand of Rs.600/- as illegal gratification. Thereafter on 19-01-2000, there were negotiations in which the respondent/accused asked for an amount of Rs.400/- for carrying the necessary mutation entries. It was agreed between them t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Savari, Tq. Nilanga. The proceedings were initiated by present respondent Nos.4 to 6 purportedly U/Sec. 7 and 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act seeking disqualification of the petitioner to be a Sarpanch on the ground that the petitioner has failed to conduct the necessary gram sabhas and the monthly meetings. The Additional Collector, Latur allowed the said proceedings and disqualified the petitioner to be a member of the Gram Panchayat. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition. 3. Shri Thombre, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner has taken the necessary Gram Sabhas as is evident from the report of the Block Development Officer. According to the learned counsel in respect of two monthly meetings which are not held, the petitioner has given reasons that at the relevant time there was model code of conduct in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
NareshH. Patil, J. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally. 2. The petitioner challenges validity of the order passed on 9th October, 2012 by the In-charge Commandant, State Reserve Police Force, Group No.3, Jalna, cancelling permission for keeping beard. The petitioner submits that he is a Muslim and professes Islam religion. He was appointed as a Police Constable in the State Reserve Police Force on 16-1-2008. At present he is discharging his duties as Police Constable in the State Reserve Police Force Group No.3, Jalna. He had applied for keeping beard on 28th February, 2012. It is contended that initially respondent No.3 - Commandant, SRPF, Jalna granted permission to keep beard in view of letter dated 8-3-1989 of Government of India. By the impugned order dated 9th October, 2012 the respondent No.3 cancelled the Order dated 7-5-2012 under which the petitioner was permitted to keep beard. The petitioner was given opportunity to apply for keeping beard for a temporary pe...
Tag this Judgment!