Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant-State of Maharashtra has appealed against the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Murbad on 29th January, 1996 in R.C.C. No. 107 of 1988 acquitting respondent-accused from the charge of commission of offence punishable under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Such of the facts regarding said prosecution and necessary for deciding the present proceeding are as under:- 2.1. On 9th June, 1988 by S.T. Bus at 6.15 p.m., Baban Dagadu, first informant (PW-5) resident of village Malhed, alongwith one Raghunath Krishna Pawar (PW-2) and Tukaram Pawar had been to Village Tondli for replacing tiles on the house of one Shri Babaji Shankar. After finishing the said work, PW-5 alongwith his companion Bhaga Krishna (PW-3) returned to Murbad at about 6.50 p.m. by S.T. Bus. By another bus, from Murbad they went to Village Shivale. PW-5, while returning from the house of Babaji Shankar borrowed Rs.500/-. After reaching ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Order: 1. Heard Ms.Leela D. Malu, the learned counsel for the applicant, and Ms.R.M.Gadhavi, the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is sought to be arrested in C.R.No.187 of 2012, of Shahu Nagar Police Station, which is in respect of offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 thereof. The applicant, apprehending arrest, approached the court of Sessions for anticipatory bail, but the learned Sessions Judge rejected the said application observing that it would be necessary to have the custodial interrogation of the applicant. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that all the offences, with which the applicant is charged, are bailable. But still an application for anticipatory bail was made as the police and sometimes the subordinate courts also, treat the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC, as non-bailable. The learned counsel submitted that, that the said offence is bailable was canvassed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. In view of the order passed on 05.01.2012 directing that this Writ Petition be disposed of finally at the stage of admission, Rule. 2. Mr.M.L. Patil, who has filed appearance on behalf of the contesting Respondent No.1, waives service. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been duly served. No relief is claimed against them and equally against the Respondent No.4. As far as the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are concerned, the Registry has reported that service is complete, but none has appeared on their behalf. The contest is really between Petitioner and Respondent No.1. 3. With the consent of parties, the Writ Petition is disposed of by this judgment. 4. By this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli in Election Petition No.7/2008. 5. By the said judgment and order, the Election Petition preferred by the original Petitioner i.e. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance in this petition is about the inaction of the police department in extending assistance of protection to the Officers of Respondent No.1 to perform their statutory duties under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and the Rules framed thereunder. The Superintendent of Police, Respondent No.3 herein, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rame Gowda (D) by L.Rs. vs. M.Varadappa Naidu (D) by L.Rs and anr., AIR 2004 SC 4609 has expressed inability of the police Department to extend any support to the District Magistrate, Kolhapur. This inaction is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 3. The petitioner is the auction purchaser, who is relying on the State Government Circular dated 14.1.2008 issuing directions to all concerned, in particular, to the police authorities to give assistance / protection to the officers of the Cooperative Department. In the present case, the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
By this common judgment, I propose to dispose of all the above Criminal Appeals as they pertain to bouncing of cheques issued in relation to the same transaction. 2. Criminal Appeals No. 6 of 2010; 7 of 2010; 9 of 2010 7 and 10 of 2010 have been preferred against the judgments/orders dated 30/9/2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ponda in Criminal Cases No. 35/OA/99/A; 34/OA/99/A; 39/OA/99/A; and 45/OA/99/A, respectively. Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2010 has been filed against the judgment/order dated 29/9/2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji in Criminal Case No. 254/OA/99/C. Vide the said judgments, impugned in the present appeals, the Complaints filed by the appellant against the accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (N.I. Act, for short) were all dismissed. 3. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they appear in the cause titles of the impugned judgment...
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 Goa
Oral Judgment: Leave to amend forthwith. 2. Heard Shri R. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri E. Afonso, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. The above petition challenges the order dated 11/09/2008 passed by respondent no.2 and the order dated 8/04/2009 passed by respondent no.3 whereby the information sought by the petitioner at Serial No.3 in the application dated 7/07/2008 came to be rejected. 4. Shri R. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on the ground that respondent no.3 whilst passing the impugned order has misread the provisions of Section 6 subsection 2 of the Right to Information Act in holding that the petitioner has to give reasons as to why such information was required from the Authorities. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment passed by the second Appellate Authority and pointed out that the respondent no.3 has erroneously found that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Mohammad Ateeque, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. A.V. Khare, learned Advocate for respondent. 2. Admitted. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. The applicant is admittedly the husband of non-applicant Rabiya Parveen. The non-applicant has filed an Application before the Family Court for grant of maintenance u/s. 125 of the Cr.P.C. The applicant is the resident of village Deoli, Tah.Deoli, Dist. Wardha. The non-applicant Mrs. Rabiya Parveen's parents are resident of Amravati. During the course of pendency of the Application for grant of maintenance, the Family Court has granted interim maintenance to the non-applicant. Written statement has been filed by the applicant in response to the application filed by the non-applicant before the Family Court for grant of maintenance. In the said written statement, a preliminary objection is raised regarding jurisdiction of Nagpur Court to hear the application of the non-applicant. 4. Learned Advocate Mr...
Tag this Judgment!