Mumbai Court March 2013 Judgments
Sanjay Madhukar Satam Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-2013
Oral Judgment: [Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.] 1 The appellant original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 31st July, 2006 passed by the 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No.206 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2 The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under: PW-1 Madhukar was the husband of Suhasini (deceased). The appellant was the younger son of PW-1 Madhukar and Suhasini. PW-1 had two sons, the elder son was Rajesh and the younger son was the appellant Sanjay. PW-1 Madhukar, his wife Suhasini, the appellant and Rajesh were residing at Flat No.202, Sai Darshan Society, Kopari, Thane. After Rajesh got married, he along with his wife shifted to Lokmanya Nagar at Dombivali. The appellant continued to stay wi...
Tag this Judgment!Karim Gulab Mujavar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-2013
Oral Judgment: [P.D. Kode, J.]: 1 The appellant assails the judgment and order dated 5th April, 2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag, in Sessions Case No.131 of 2006, convicting him for committing the murder of his wife Naseema on 13th March, 2006 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2 According to the prosecution, P.W.No.1 Reshma was residing at Phanas Dongri, Pen, along with her husband Irfan Pathan. The deceased Naseema wife of the appellant, was the daughter of maternal uncle of PW-1 Reshma. Her maiden name Sheetal was changed to Naseema after her love marriage with the appellant. The couple had a daughter by name Sneha of age 7 years. Her parents had passed away five years prior to the occurrence of incident and the other relative was not keeping relations with Naseema. 3 According to the prosecution, after a happy married life of few yea...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Baban Ombale Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-2013
P.D. Kode, J.] :- 1. The appellant-original accused assails the judgment and order dated 30.04.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.16 of 2006, convicting him for committing the murder of his brother Sanjay Baban Ombale and for causing disappearance of the evidence of said murder with intent to screen himself from the legal punishment for committing said murder and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further S.I. for two months for committing the offence of murder and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further S.I. for two months for the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C., i.e., for causing disappearance of the evidence of murder and further ordering to run both the substantive sentences concurrently. 2. According to the prosecution, the first informant Bab...
Tag this Judgment!Vivek Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-26-2013
Oral Judgment: [B.R. Gavai, J.] 1] Rule. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2] The applicant has filed the present application seeking quashing of the First Information Report dated 06.02.2012 lodged by non-applicant no.2 with non-applicant no.1Police Station Officer, Seloo Police Station, DistrictWardha, by which, the crime is registered against the applicant, vide Crime No.12 of 2012, for the offences punishable under Sections 167, 420, 468, 471, 474, 109 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3] The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present application are as under: The applicant is an I.F.S. officer and was working as Deputy Conservator of Forest from 29.09.2006 to 16.08.2010 at Wardha. On 03.05.2006 one Govinda Mahagya Waskar had applied for permission to cut tress on his land to the Range Forest Officer, Hingni. The Range Forest Officer, Hingni, after receipt of the applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh S/O Bhagwan Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Its Pr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-26-2013
NareshH Patil, J. 1) Through this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the order dated 14-9-2012 passed by District Magistrate, Jalgaon, detaining the petitioner for one year in exercise of powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short, the Act of 1981) is challenged. 2) The detaining authority was satisfied that the petitioner was possessing dangerous weapons and indulged in creating terror and fear amongst the people. The petitioner committed offenses as mentioned in Chapter 16 and 17 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has no fear of law. Due to the activities of the petitioner sense of insecurity prevailed in the minds of general public. The detaining authority further observed that the petitioner is a rancorous person of vindictive nature who prevents people from lodging complaint against him. There are various ...
Tag this Judgment!Pratima Prabhakarrao Borikar Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Its Sec ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-26-2013
Chief Justice The petitioner, resident of Parbhani, an Ex-Councillor of the Parbhani Municipal Corporation and practicing Lawyer at District Court Parbhani, has challenged the nomination of respondent Nos.3 to 7 as Councillors of Parbhani Municipal Corporation under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Qualifications and Appointment of Nominated Councillors) Rules, 2012. 2. After general elections of the Parbhani Municipal Corporation, the meeting of the Councillors was held on 26 June 2012 to nominate 5 persons as Municipal Councillors of Parbhani Municipal Corporation. By Resolution dated 26 June 2012, the elected Councillors nominated respondent Nos.3 to 7 as Councillors all of them being office bearers of N.G.Os., rendering social services and having 5 years experience in the field. 3. Section 5(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 provides for nomination of Councillors. The Rules framed under the said Act and other Acts governing the nomination of members u...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Manjita Naik Tuenkar Vs. Soiroo @ Sarvesh C. Naik Tuenkar and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-26-2013
Oral Judgment: This revision application is directed against the order dated 30th January, 2012 by which the Criminal Appeal preferred by respondent no.1 herein against interim order dated 28th November, 2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 'C' Court, Mapusa, granting interim custody of the girl child aged 5 years to the petitioner was allowed. The petitioner is the mother and respondent no.1 is the father of the child. 2. In her application for custody of the daughter, the petitioner alleges that on 25th May, 2011, at around 1.00 p.m., there was a quarrel between the husband and wife. The respondent abused her and forced her to leave the house. Consequently, the petitioner had to take refuge with the landlady who lived close-by. At about 4.00 a.m. the respondent forcibly grabbed the child sleeping with the petitioner and left the house on his scooter. It is the case of the petitioner that she waited on that day till 8.00 p.m. in the hope that the respondent would calm d...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-26-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. Rule was issued on 4.12.2000 with interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d). 2. In R.C.C. No.81/1982, by judgment and order dated 22.7.1991, learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir convicted the petitioner (original accused No.2) Dilip Ganpat Gaikwad for offence under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for 45 days. For offence under Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code, he was convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one month and to pay fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for 30 days. Said judgment was questioned in Criminal Appeal No.33/1991. However, on 22.7.1991, the appeal was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur. 3. The prosecution case, in short is, the Deputy Collector at Udgir had received report from Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Nasik, doubting certificate presented by original accused No.1 Basav...
Tag this Judgment!Voice of Villagers Vs. State of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-26-2013
U.V. Bakre, J. Heard. 2. Rule. The Learned Additional Government Advocate waives service of notice on behalf of respondents no.1 to 5. 3. Heard forthwith with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 4. Alleging that there is unregulated trading, transportation and sale of ground water by various agencies such as private transporters, industrial establishments, hoteliers, restauranteurs, builders, developers, mining companies, and other commercial establishments, who are exploiting ground water by digging tube wells and bore wells,etc. without permissions, and which is having a severe impact on the ground water table in the State of Goa and stating that urgent steps are needed to be taken for regulation and control of the usage of ground-water for commercial purposes as per the orders/ directions issued by the Government and in accordance with the provisions of Goa Groundwater Regulation Act and the Rules framed thereunder and further submitting that the respondents no.2 to 4 ha...
Tag this Judgment!Netaji Shivram Chougale Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-2013
Oral Judgment: (P.D. Kode, J.) The appellant-original accused No.1 in S.C.No.16 of 2005 assails the judgment and order dated 7th August, 2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj, convicting him for murdering wife Manisha on 18th November, 2004 and sentencing to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Shivram-original accused No.2 and Laxmibai-original accused No.3, i.e. parents of the appellant also tried alongwith the appellant at the trial, were acquitted from the charge of all of them in furtherance of their common intention having committed murder of Manisha. 2. According to the prosecution, the appellant and Manisha since their marriage effected on 27th May, 2003 were residing at the house of the parents of the appellant, viz. acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 in the fields at village Basarge. The appellant then was working as a Pigmi Agent for Noukud Cred...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »