Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(2)ALLMR632; 2008(3)BomCR169; [2008(117)FLR233]; 2008(3)MhLj202
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution impugns the Judgment and Order dated 9/4/1996 rendered by the learned Member of the Industrial Court at Kolhapur thereby allowing Revision Application (ULP) No. 3 of 1995 and consequently the order passed by the Labour Court on 22/12/1992 holding that the Remand Home is an Industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 came to be set aside. The Labour Court was further directed to return/dismiss Complaint (ULP) No. 150 of 1994.2. The present petitioner came to be employed as a Clerk-cum-Typist with effect from 6/1/1990 by Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan Remand Home, Kolhapur and the said Remand Home was being managed by the Zilla Parviksha Va Anuraksha Sanghatana (District Probation and After Care Association)(for short referred to as the Association). The said Association has its own constitution providing for its aims and objects which include the protection of the children's right...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1990(3)BomCR665; 1991CriLJ445
1. On 1st August, 1990 this Hon'ble Court issued a notice to the learned Advocate-General of Maharashtra seeking his assistance to determine the question as to whether the Bombay Children Act, 1948 has stood repealed on coming into force of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. This question is now being determined after hearing submissions of the learned Advocate-General and all the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.2. For the purpose of consideration of the above question, it is necessary to refer to the legislative history of the two Acts and, briefly, to their respective provisions.3. On 1st December, 1986 the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (Act No. 53 of 1986) received the assent of the President. The said Act is a Parliamentary Statute enacted to provide for the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of neglected or delinquent juveniles and for the adjudication of certain matters relating to, and disposition of, delinquent juveniles.4. On 13th day of August,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(2)ALD(Cri)490; 1997(45)BLJR1644; JT1997(8)SC43; 1997(6)SCALE80; (1997)8SCC386
1. Leave granted,2. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi (the accused) was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Satara for offences under Section 376 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 57 of the Bombay Children Act, 1948 for having committed rape on a girl of eight years of age and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and for offence under Section 57 of the Bombay Children Act, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof rigorous imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to ran concurrently. Maruti car in which the offence of rape was committed was ordered to be forfeited and confiscated to the State, The accused appealed to the Bombay High Court against his conviction and sentence. A Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated October 4, 1994 upheld the conviction of the accus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002BomCR(Cri)140
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal preferred under section 378(1) of the Cr.P.C. the State of Maharashtra impugns the Judgment and order dated 20/8/ 1985 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 153 of 1983 acquitting the respondent for offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 57 of the Bombay Children Act.2. Shortly stated the prosecution case runs as under :-The prosecutrix -Sangita Raghunath Pednekar, aged about 9 years at the time of the incident was living in Building No. 52, Room No. 1662, Tagore Nagar, Vikroli, Bombay - 83 along with her mother Vijaya Pednekar PW 1, her father Raghunath Pednekar (not examined), her brothers Vishwas and Sudhir. At that time, the respondent along with his wife Jayshree Dudang was staying in the adjoining room bearing No. 1661.The prosecutrix and her brothers Vishwas and Sudhir were studying in Vidya Mandir School. On 18.3.1982 at about 7 a.m. the prosecutrix left her house fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1946; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)777; 2006(3)ALD42(SC); JT2006(5)SC18; 2006(II)OLR(SC)1; 2006(4)SCALE336
Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J.1. Concerned by the plight of the undertrial prisoners languishing in various jails in the country, various directions were issued by this Court from time to time. Presently, we are considering mainly the issue of directions for the development of children who are in jail with their mothers, who are in jail either as undertrial prisoners or convicts. Children, for none of their fault, but per force, have to stay in jail with their mothers. In some cases, it may be because of the tender age of the child, while in other cases, it may be because there is no one at home to look after them or to take care of them in absence of the mother. The jail environment are certainly not congenial for development of the children.2. For the care, welfare and development of the children, special and specific provisions have been made both in Part III and IV of the Constitution of India, besides other provisions in these parts which are also significant. The best interest of the child...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(2)ALLMR233; 2003(4)BomCR431; 2003(3)MhLj229
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This Petition is by persons claiming to be the heirs of the deceased tenant one Maniram Waghmare challenging the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by which that Tribunal has declared the Respondents to be the tenant of the land in question. The land in question is Survey No. 49 admeasuring 5 H. 20 Gunthas situate within the Nashik Municipal limits. The present proceedings were initiated by the Respondents under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Tenancy Act', for a declaration that they were the tenants of the land in question. They claimed that they are the legal heirs of one Mhalsabai and the original tenant Maniram. Mhalsabai and Maniram were admittedly not married to each other. They claimed tenancy over the claim to the said tenancy by the Petitions who are legal heirs of Maniram through the lawfully wedded wife.2. Earlier Mhalsabai had filed a civil suit claiming that she had succee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1994(1)BomCR575; (1994)96BOMLR824; 1994CriLJ774
Saldanha, J.1. On 5-1-1988, a most gruesome, horrifying and reprehensible incident took place at about 4.30 p.m. at village Gojegaon in Satara District, when an child by the name of Savita Balwant Ghorpade aged hardly 4 years was taken to a lonely place and raped by a young man who ostensibly claimed to be of unsound mind. It is alleged that the accused Umesh Krishna Pawar who is an agriculturist by profession had picked up this girl and taken her on his bicycle to a lonely place near the canal. At that spot he is alleged to have sexually assaulted Savita after which he lifted up the unclothed girl and threw her into the canal. It so happened that just at that point of time P.W. 7 Prakash Khandale happened to have witnessed the incident and on seeing the child being thrown into the canal he raised an alarm. Two of the villagers who were close by in a bullock cart were immediately alerted. One of them not only jumped into the water and saved the life of the young girl by taking her out,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(3)BomCR705
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The challenge in all these petitions is to the constitutional validity of Sections 33A and 33B of the Bombay Police Act, as amended by the Bombay Police (Amendment) Act, 2005. The bill was passed by the Legislative Assembly on 21st July, 2005 and by the Legislative Council on 23rd July, 2005 and has now come into force. The Sections under challenge may be gainfully reproduced:33A(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules made by the Commissioner of Police or the District Magistrate under sub-section (1) of Section 33 for the area under their respective charges, on and from the date of commencement of the Bombay Police (Amendment) Act, 2005,-(a) holding of a performance of dance, of any kind or type, in any eating house, permit room or beer bar is prohibited;(b) all performance licences, issued under the aforesaid rules by the Commissioner of Police or the District Magistrate or any other officer, as the case may be, being the Licensing Authority,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
APPEALS RELATING TO LIFE SENTENCE PART-2 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1178 of 2007 Essa @ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon (A-3) Appellant(s) vs. The State of Maharashtra, through STF, CBI Mumbai ...Respondent(s) WITH Criminal Appeal No.1179 of 2007 AND Criminal Appeal No.419 of 2011 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1181 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 1127-1128 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 1252-1253 of 2007 AND Criminal Appeal No.413 of 2011 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1365 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1224 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1440 of 2007 AND Criminal Appeal No.1028 of 2012 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1441 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal No.401 of 2008 AND Criminal Appeal No.1023 of 2012 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 976-977 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.616 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 979-980 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 633 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 651-652 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 653 AND 65.of 2008 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1 Both appeals arise out of the common judgment and order, therefore, they were heard together and can be disposed of by common judgment. 2 These appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are directed against the judgment and order dated 27.06.2012 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3440/2011. That Writ Petition was filed by the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 in LPA No.278/2012, who are original Petitioners and they impugned the order passed by the Respondent No.1 State Government dated 30.10.2010 in Revision Application by which the Revisional Authority has set aside the orders dated 20.02.2010 and 22.06.2010 of the Collector, Nagpur and the Commissioner, State Excise respectively. The Revision Application before the Minister was filed by the Appellant before us in LPA No.278/2012 as its application seeking FLIII licence was rejected. 3 The facts leading to the filing of these Appeals are that the Appellant in LPA No.278/2012 made an application for gran...
Tag this Judgment!