Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Reported in : 2009(3)BCR(Cri)258; 2009ALLMR(CRI)2883; 2010CriLJ205(NOC)
V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.1. These are applications filed U/s 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking directions that in the event of arrest, the applicants may be released on bail.2. The incident giving rise to the applications is said to have occurred between 30.6.2009 and 1.7.2009. It appears that one Purshottam Patel, a contractor, had lodged a report against Dr.Uttam Dhana Mahajan, pertaining to alleged defrauding in respect of certain amounts which were payable to him. It was alleged by said complainant Purshottam that he was duped and cheated by said Dr. Uttam Mahajan. In pursuance to the said complaint, applicant No.1 Manoj, who was then the Additional Superintendent of Police at Chalisgaon, called Dr. Uttam Mahajan, in his office around 10/10-30 a.m. on 30.6.2009. The applicant Manoj deputed PSI Nimbalkar to call said Dr. Uttam Mahajan. Allegedly, Dr. Uttam Mahajan is member of Congress Party and was about to proceed to attend some rally or function at Nasik along with some other co-workers. He was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. By preferring the present criminal application, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the charge sheet and proceedings of RTC No.88/2010 on the file of JMFC, Rahuri, which arise out of crime No.98/2010 registered with Rahuri police Station for an offence punishable u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Rule.3. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for applicant and learned APP, heard finally at the stage of admission itself.4. The facts, which gave rise to file the present criminal application, may briefly be summarized thus The Collector, Ahmednagar had auctioned a stand strip situated in river bed Mula at Mauje DaradgaonThadi, for the year 200910. The applicant was the highest bidder in the said auction and hence the said auction was granted in favour of the applicant. The applicant had purchased the said auction for Rs.96,00,000/. As per the terms and conditions of the auction, the auction purchaser was required to deposit 1/4th of the auction ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing.3. By the present petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prayed for quashment of the order passed by Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge1, Dhule in Criminal Revision Application No.177 of 2009 dated 14.12.2009, by releasing the cattle in favour of the petitioner and upholding the judgment passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 175/2009 dated 6.11.2009, by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sindkheda.FACTUAL MATRIX :4. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is dealing in business of sale and purchase of animals since many years. Sindkheda Police Station has registered offence under CR No.18/2009 against the petitioner for offences under Sections 11 (d) (e) (f) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Under Section 5 (1) 11 of Maharashtra Animal Preservation A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing.3. By the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for the appropriate writ, directing that order dated 11.2.2009, passed below Exh.53 in STCC No.1489/2006 by learned 5 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhule rejecting the application and also judgment and order dated 31.10.2009 rendered in Criminal Revision Application No.70/2009 by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule dismissing the said Revision be quashed and set aside. FACTUAL MATRIX :4. The petitioner is the original accused and respondent No.2 is the original complainant, who filed STCC No.1489/2006 against the present petitioner wherein she alleged that she had given loan of Rs.3,50,000/ to the petitioner/accused and in discharge of the said liability, and towards repayment of the said loan, petitioner had issued a cheque...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants herein, by way of judgment and order dated 16th April 2010, rendered by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner, in Sessions Case No. 15 of 2008, thereby convicting them for offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, for having voluntarily caused grievous hurt by dangerous weapon to victim Arun s/o. Pandharinath Mahajan (PW 1), and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, each, and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, each, and also convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC for having voluntarily caused grievous hurt by dangerous weapon to Sarlabai s/o. Ramesh Mahajan (PW 4), and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, each, and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, each, in default of payment of fine,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties matter is taken up for final hearing.3. By the present petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner (original non applicant) has prayed that impugned order dated 20.6.2009 at exhibit 'B' filing along with present petition and impugned order dated 26.6.2009 below Exhibit 11 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Kalamnuri, District Hingoli be quashed and set aside and say of the petitioner may be accepted.4. It is the contention of the petitioner that present respondents/original applicants filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 151/2008 before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Kalamnuri praying for maintenance from the petitioner under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is also contention of the petitioner that upon receipt of notice, he appeared in the said matter and engaged advocate and sought time to fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. By the present revision application, the applicant has assailed the order and judgment passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Cri.Appeal No.89/2006 which was dismissed for default on 02/08/2008.2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned APP for State.3. Rule.4. Rule made returnable forthwith.5. Considering the small issue involved in this revision application, i.e. whether the First Appellate Court can dismiss the criminal appeal for default, filed against the order of conviction, by consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.6. It appears that the revision applicant was tried for the offences punishable u/s. 457, 380 of The IPC by the 5th J.M.F.C.Aurangabad in RCC No.102/2006. It further appears that in connection with the said offence, revision applicant came to be arrested on 11/11/2005 and since then is in custody. After recording the statement of witnesses and after completing the requisite formalities, the 5th J.M.F.C. Court had ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.2. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.7312 of 2008 prayed for directions to Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to declare election programme for holding election of Respondent No.6 Gangakhed Taluka Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Ltd., Gangakhed, DistParbhani. The Petitioner further prayed for granting injunction against the Authorities from appointing any Administrative Board. The Petitioner prayed for directions to prevent the Administrative Board from disposing of the immovable property of the Respondent No.6 Sangh. Byway of amendment, the Petitioner prayed for directions to Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to take the charge of the Respondent No.6 Sangh and to take possession of the property of the Sangh which was illegally delivered to Respondent Nos. 13, 14 and other traders. The Petitioner prayed for interim relief.3. In Writ Petition No.1175 of 2009 the Petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned resolution dated 3rd December, 2008 passed by the Board in res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the conviction and sentence inflicted upon the appellant/original accused by judgment and order dated 23.4.1998, rendered by Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.280 of 1997 convicting the appellant/accused under section 436 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/, with default condition of non payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for six months.2. The prosecution case which can be summarized as under : The appellant/original accused namely Dharam Kondiram Gumladu is resident of Dongaon and was residing with his wife in a hut erected in his field. The complainant namely Dashabai Ramchandra Namglot i.e. PW 1 also resided similarly, along with her husband and children in the hut erected in the field close to the field of the accused. It is alleged that there was some quarrel between the accused and his wife on 31.3.1997, which was overheard by PW 1 Dashabai and her h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1.1 The challenge in this appeal is to the conviction and sentence inflicted upon the appellant (original accused no.1) by judgment and order dated 5.12.2009, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 2008, convicting the appellant under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/, in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for one month.2 The factual matrix of the prosecution case can be summarised as under :It is the case of prosecution that deceased Shobha i.e. victim herein was the wife of appellant herein and she was residing with the appellant along with her three children in her matrimonial home at Pimpalgaon, Taluka Jintur. The marriage between deceased Shobha and accused no.1 was solemnized about eight years back from the date of incident. It is alleged that the appellant herein used to assault victim Shobha under the influence of liquor freq...
Tag this Judgment!