Mumbai Goa Court March 2016 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.
Richie Edwin Dias Vs. State of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-02-2016
Oral Judgment: (K.L. Wadane, J.) 1. Heard Mr. V. Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. M. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. A. Kudtarkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3. 2. Rule. 3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 4. The present petition is filed by the petitioner/accused, invoking jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the charge-sheet bearing No.32/2013 in Criminal Case No.IPC/140/2013/B pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji. 5. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- On 29.3.2013 at about 19.30 hours, within the jurisdiction of respondent no.2, the petitioner drove his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and when the petition...
Union of India, Through Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Int ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Special Public Prosecutor for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.03.2011 rendered in Criminal Case No. 1/C/2005/A passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Goa, Margao, thereby acquitting the respondent of the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(c)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under: On 14.07.2003 at about 14:00 hours when the respondent accompanied by two ladies namely, Smt. Shobha Khira and Ms. Tina Khira had checked in to board Indian Airlines Flight to Sharjah, officers of the appellant having received prior information intercepted the respondent and the two ladies accompanying him in order to find out if they were carrying with them any goods in contravention of the provisions of Section 135(1)(c)(ii) read with Section 113(d) of the Customs Act. Upon interrogation, it was noticed that the respondent ...
Joaquim Milagres Joao Fernandes Vs. State and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard finally by consent. 3. It is seen from the impugned orders that both the authorities below have not read the report of the Range Forest Officer in ts correct perspective. His report dated 30/10/2014 nowhere states that the condition of the tree is ruinous or such as to indicate that it is likely to fall down. Report only states that because some electric lines are passing from below the tree, it may be dangerous to life and property. Report suggests that passing of electric lines from below the tree is the reason for making threat to life and property. It is clear that the tree by itself is not in dangerous or ruinous condition. The requirement of exercise of power under section 12-A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984 is that the tree in question must be in a ruinous state or its branches should be in a ruinous state or the tree should be in such a condition that it is likely to fall and ther...
Bosco D'Souza Vs. State of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. A.D. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. At the outset, at the request of Mr. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the respondent no.5 stands deleted at the risk of the petitioner. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 4. Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate waives service on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4. 5. The above petition inter-alia takes exception to the non implementation of the order dated 18.01.2016 whereby the electric connection released to the petitioner in terms of Section 94-A of the Public Health Act was not complied with. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and during the course of the hearing Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 has po...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›