Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(3)MhLj760
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.The reliefs sought:1. Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma, formerly Commissioner of Police, Mumbai and presently in detention at the Yerawada Central Prison, Pune, in pursuance of the investigation by the Special Investigating Team in the fair stamps' case has moved tins application. The reliefs which he seeks are: (a) The recalling of an order dated 24th September 2003 passed by a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Chief Justice C. K.Thakker) was a party; (b) The setting aside of a Government Resolution dated 26th September 2003; and (c) An injunction restraining Shri S.S. Puri from exercising the powers of the Director General of Police and to injunct him from being part of the Special investigating Team ('SIT') for conducting any investigation in respect of the fake stamps' case including Crime Register No. 135 of 2002 of the Bund Garden Police Station, Pune. The Applicant has been impleaded as a party to the Writ Petition 865 of 2003, and is the Sixth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3116; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)332; 2003CriLJ3897; JT2003(7)SC250; 2003(6)SCALE633; (2003)7SCC330; 2004(1)LC258(SC)
Bhan, J. 1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 135 of 2002 wherein the High Court has confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad dated 9.11.2001 under Section 56(1)(a),(b) & (bb) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') externing the appellant from Districts of Aurangabad, Jalgaon and Jalna for a period of two years. Appellant was directed to inform his residential address to the nearest Police Station within whose jurisdiction he would reside during the period of externment and also to report to that Police Station at least once in a month. The said order was confirmed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security) to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department on 24.1.2002.3. Briefly stated the facts are:4. The appellant was served with a notice dated 3rd September, 2001 on 5th September, 2001 issued under Section 59 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009CriLJ4708
Ranjana Desai, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. These two writ petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment because the parties and the facts involved in both the petitions are the same.3. It is necessary to begin with the facts of the case. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16/6/2007, the petitioners committed offences under Sections 395, 397, 342, 452, 457, 506(II), 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') read with Sections 4, 5, 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act within the jurisdiction of Pant Nagar Police Station, Mumbai.4. The case was registered vide C.R. No. 155 of 2007. The investigation of the said CR was transferred to DCB, CID, Mumbai, and the case was numbered as CR No. 39 of 2007. During the course of investigation, the petitioners were arrested. The provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short, 'the MCOCA') ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of habeas corpus against the order of detention passed on 8/10/2009 under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (for short MPDA Act) has been challenged by the father of the detenu - Shri Jaidev @ Raju Bhai @ J.D. Ramji Mishra. The detention order was served on the detenu on 9/10/2009. It was approved by the State Government on 15/10/2009 and was thereafter confirmed on 17/11/2009, for a period of one year from the date of its execution i.e. from 9/10/2009.2. The detention order was based on C.R. No. 261 of 2009 registered with the Borivali Police Station. In addition, there were two in- camera statements recorded on 29/8/2009 and 1/9/2009, which referred to the incidents of fourth week of June 2009 and first week of July, 2009 respectively. Along with the detention order, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(4)ALLMR72; 2008(3)BomCR516; (2008)110BOMLR1555
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Industrial growth and economic prosperity leads to development in various fields. Increase in influx of vehicular traffic is one of the essential consequences of such development. Easy communication and transport facility is essential ingredient for a developing city. The State and other development authorities utilise huge public funds for planned development including laying of roads to ensure more convenient accessibility to various parts of the city or town and to ensure free flow of traffic. Despite consorted efforts in this direction, it is a matter of public knowledge that traffic congestion has become a serious problem for Municipal administration. Generation of revenue by State/public authorities is again an essential feature of economic progress but such revenue generation normally should not be at the cost of environmental, social and human rights. Rudiments of socioeconomic development require that development should be in consonance with the existin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
A.M. Badar, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the show cause notice dated 23.1.2014, issued by the respondent No.3, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Aurangabad, asking him to show cause why he should not be externed from limits of Aurangabad and Jalna Districts for two years. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the documents placed on record, including the annexures to the petition. The learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner is a peace loving citizen residing at Village Demani Wahegaon, Karmad, in Aurangabad District. According to learned counsel for petitioner on 23.7.2013, petitioner received a show cause notice informing initiation of proceedings under Section 110(e) (g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C. for brevity) by Special Executive Magistrate/Police Inspector of local crime branch Aurangabad (Rural). On h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003BomCR(Cri)103; 2002CriLJ3611; 2002(4)MhLj293
A.B. Palkar, J. 1. All these three petitions have been filed by the accused in C. R. No. 44 of 1995 in respect of which Criminal Case No. 69/P of 2000 and Case No. 429 of 1994 of Thane, which have been merged in the aforesaid Case No. 69/P of 2000, pending before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, for quashing of the prosecution.2. Pyarelal Ramkishore Prajapati is the main accused and was the only accused when complaint was filed on behalf of M/s Arcade (I) Pvt. Ltd. by one M. G. Ramchandra, who is now joined as a party respondent to the above petitions and would hereinafter be referred to as 'respondent' or 'complainant' whereas petitioner would be referred to as 'petitioner' or 'accused' for the sake of convenience.3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent on 11-5-1987. On record there is no detailed agreement as is normally found in case of building construction but the bookin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Externee and the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State. Forthwith taken up for final disposal. 2. This Writ Petition takes an exception to the order of externment bearing No.145/C/43 dated 25th May, 2012, under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, passed by the Respondent No.1 and which is confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 17th August, 2012. 3. The Petitioner is normally residing at the address given in the cause tile. It is the case of the Petitioner that on or about 23rd February, 2012, a show cause notice came to be issued under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Deonar Division, Mumbai proposing the externment of the Petitioner for two years from Bombay City, Suburban, New Bombay, Thane and Raigad Districts for the offences mentioned in the said show cause notice. 4. The Petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and submitted his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
AnujaPrabhuessai, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent no.2 and learned APP. 2. The petitioners herein have invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR No.22 of 2014 registered against them at Kharghar Police Station under Section 367, 467, 468, 195, 406, 506, 420 and 383 of IPC. 3. The petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 are attached to Kharghar Police Station as Senior Police Inspector, Police Inspector, and Assistant Police Inspector respectively. Pursuant to the order dated 2.12.2014 passed by the learned Magistrate, 2nd Court, Panvel, on an application filed by the respondent no.2 purported to be under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., Crime No.22 of 2014 has been registered against the aforesaid petitioners for offences as stated above. The petitioners have stated that the Magistrate has passed the impugned order on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(10)SC77; 2008(12)SCALE167; 2008AIRSCW6431; 2008(5)LH(SC)3345
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. Leave granted.2. In all these appeals the issue that falls for our consideration is the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short the `MCOCA' or the `Act') on the ground that the State Legislature did not have the legislative competence to enact such a law and also that the aforesaid law is unreasonable and is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.3. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were arrested under the provisions of the MCOCA and cases were registered against them. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid arrest and registration of cases both of them filed separate writ petitions being Criminal Writ Petition No. 1738/2002 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 110/2003 respectively in the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the MCOCA, particularly the provisions of Section 2(d), (e) and (f) and that of Sections 3, 4 and 13 to 16 and Section 21(5) of the MCOCA. Respondent No. 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!