Mumbai Goa Court December 2015 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Prashant Madrekar Vs. Police Inspector ACB/ Vigilance and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-02-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of the respondents. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner/ accused is challenging the order dated 16/10/2015, passed by the learned Special Judge, Panaji in Special Case No.2/2014. By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., for recalling PW1 Thomas Menezes, for further cross-examination, has been rejected. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner is facing trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act before the learned Special Court at Panaji. It appears that earlier, the petitioner was represented by Advocate Mr. De Sa. PW1 Thomas Menezes, who is the complainant and a material witness, came to be examined and was cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner by Advocate Mr. De Sa. On 21/12/2010, further cross-examination was deferred. It appears that, subsequently, there is yet another en...
Jitendra Deshprabhu Vs. Pradip Kakodkar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-01-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. D. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. R. Menezes, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. S. R. Rivankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 4 to 10. 2. A short point which comes for consideration in the above writ petition without going into the merits of the rival contentions is whether the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji, dated 27.06.2013 dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner on the ground that such revision petition was not maintainable is sustainable in law. 3. Mr. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of the hearing of the above writ petition has brought to our notice a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 21.10.2015 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 159 of 2014 in the case of Avinash Trimbakrao Dhondage V/s The State of Maharashtra and anr., wherein the Division Bench has taken a ...
State of Goa Vs. Atish Mandrekar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-01-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. M. Amonkar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner and Mr. C. A. Ferreira, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with consent of the learned counsel. 3. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, learned counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent. 4. During the course of the hearing of the above petition, Mr. C. A. Ferreira, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has pointed out that in the meanwhile the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 21.10.2015 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 159 of 2014 in the case of Avinash Trimbakrao Dhondage V/s The State of Maharashtra and anr., while examining as to whether a revision would lie challenging the order under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, has taken a view that such revision is maintainable as such order is not an interlocutory order. The learned counsel further points out that the petitioner had in fact preferred a rev...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›