Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jan-20-2016
Indira K. Jain, J. 1. Confirmation Case No. 1 of 2015 arises out of the Reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Sessions Case No. 127 of 2012 for confirmation of death sentence awarded to appellant/accused Ravi s/o Ashok Ghumare. By the judgment and order dated 16.9.2015 the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and sentenced him to capital punishment of death. By the very same judgment and order accused was also convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under “ Convicion under SectionSentence363Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500 i/d Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months376Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500 i/d Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months377Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 500 i/d Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months2. Accused being aggrie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jan-21-2016
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the Appellant husband an Ophthalmologist (hereafter referred as "Petitioner"), whose Petition for divorce against the Respondent wife B.H.M.S. practicing Homeopathy (hereafter referred as "Respondent") has been dismissed by the Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No.A.263 of 2006. Keeping in view the nature of dispute, we have blocked the names of the parties in the cause title. 2. Succinctly put, the marriage between the parties took place on 29th November 2002. They lived together happily for some time and then due to disputes, the Petitioner claims that the Respondent deserted him on 30th December 2003. The Respondent claims that she was beaten and left at the place of her parents on 4th December 2003. Petitioner husband earlier filed Divorce Petition No.A.46 of 2004 on 3rd February 2004. The Respondent received summons in that matter on 9th February 2004. Thereafter few incidents took place and the Respondent filed F.I.R. leading to cri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jan-21-2016
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the Appellant husband an Ophthalmologist (hereafter referred as "Petitioner"), whose Petition for divorce against the Respondent wife B.H.M.S. practicing Homeopathy (hereafter referred as "Respondent") has been dismissed by the Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No.A.263 of 2006. Keeping in view the nature of dispute, we have blocked the names of the parties in the cause title. 2. Succinctly put, the marriage between the parties took place on 29th November 2002. They lived together happily for some time and then due to disputes, the Petitioner claims that the Respondent deserted him on 30th December 2003. The Respondent claims that she was beaten and left at the place of her parents on 4th December 2003. Petitioner husband earlier filed Divorce Petition No.A.46 of 2004 on 3rd February 2004. The Respondent received summons in that matter on 9th February 2004. Thereafter few incidents took place and the Respondent filed F.I.R. leading to cri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jan-21-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of both the sides. 2. Aggrieved by the rejection of the application by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhusawal vide order dated 15/10/2015 in Sessions Case No.312 of 2014, thereby refusing to call the two witnesses on the application of the complainant/petitioner, the present writ petition is preferred. 3. The present petitioner is the complainant in the case. It is an admitted fact that the Sessions case is at the fag end. Two of the witnesses, who were claimed to be the eye witnesses, those were examined by the prosecution, had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. Therefore, earlier, the present petitioner had filed similar application at Exhibit 62 on 05/11/2014 for calling one Shaligram Zago Beldar and Ratiram Tulshiram Beldar, as the eye witnesses. The said application was allowed by the learned Sessions Court, Bhusawal vide order dated 10/12/2014. 4. Aggrieved by the said ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jan-25-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the Petition is taken up for final disposal at admissions stage. 2. Petitioner original complainant (hereafter referred as 'Complainant') in Misc. Application No.253 of 2008, has filed this Petition challenging the impugned order dated 24th November 2010 whereby his complaint came to be dismissed. It is stated that the Complainant went through a civil litigation against one Lahoti which was fought till the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Complainant succeeded. At the time of execution of Darkhast for possession, Respondent No.2 original accused objected, relying on electricity bill to claim that he was in adverse possession. Consequently the Complainant collected information and came to know that Respondent No.2 got forged "Hami Patra" (i.e. consent letter) purporting it to be from his mother (though dead) consenting to pay charges for reconnection of electricity which had ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jan-25-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the Petition is taken up for final disposal at admissions stage. 2. Petitioner original complainant (hereafter referred as 'Complainant') in Misc. Application No.253 of 2008, has filed this Petition challenging the impugned order dated 24th November 2010 whereby his complaint came to be dismissed. It is stated that the Complainant went through a civil litigation against one Lahoti which was fought till the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Complainant succeeded. At the time of execution of Darkhast for possession, Respondent No.2 original accused objected, relying on electricity bill to claim that he was in adverse possession. Consequently the Complainant collected information and came to know that Respondent No.2 got forged "Hami Patra" (i.e. consent letter) purporting it to be from his mother (though dead) consenting to pay charges for reconnection of electricity which had ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Feb-03-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. In all these petitions, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 8.7.2015 delivered by the Industrial Court, Latur, in Complaint (ULP) Nos.180/2011, 175/2011, 179/2011, 177/2011, 178/2011 and 176/2011, filed by the respondent employees respectively. 2. The petitioner in all these petitions is the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. All the sole respondents in these petitions are the employees, who have been charged with for having participated in an illegal strike, which occurred on 28.11.2000. Considering the involvement of the respondents in a common act, which is a common issue in all these petitions, they have been taken up together for hearing. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 4. By the impugned judgment, the Industrial Court, Latur, has allowed the complaints filed by the respondents with costs. Unfair labour practice under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recogni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Feb-17-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the conviction for the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and consequently recording of the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years against the original accused in Sessions Case No.45 of 2011, decided by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Latur on 03/12/2012, the present appeal is preferred. 3. According to the prosecution, the present appellant has hit her husband PW5 - injured, by stone in the night time due to which he has received serious injuries. 4. The prosecution case in short, is as under:- On 12/3/2011, PW3 - Rajendra Patil, the Police Patil of village Lamjana, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur filed complaint at Exhibit 29 with Police Station, Killari, alleging therein that the present appellant was always insisting her husband to dispose of his property from the village and to reside at Latur. Even she used to beat her husband on the said cause. She even did not use to carry household work...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Feb-23-2016
1. All the appellants in present five appeals were convicted by the learned Special Judge under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short, "MCOC Act"), Aurangabad in Special Case No.10 of 2009, by judgment and order dated 31st July, 2014, for the offences punishable under section 395 r/w. Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years. 2. Original accused no.1 - Kiran, who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No.592 of 2014, original accused no.2 - Suresh, who is appellant no.2 in Criminal Appeal No.745 of 2014, original accused no.4 - Dumya alias Lakhan alias Inamdar Bhosale, who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No.583 of 2014 and original accused no.5 - Santosh, who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2015, were convicted for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(ii) of the MCOC Act r/w section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Each of them were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Feb-24-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. Since a common issue is involved in both these matters, I have considered these petitions together. 3. The petitioner has raised an unusual, but a vital issue in the light of the Part I order of the Labour Court concluding that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. Whether the evidence statement of a witness in written form before the Enquiry Officer in a domestic enquiry, should necessarily be sworn on oath before a Notary or before a competent authority which has the power to administer an oath, is the issue. 4. In both these cases, the respondents / employees have preferred complaints before the Labour Court Aurangabad u/s 28 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. In both these cases, the fairness of the enquiry has been conceded. However, in both these cases, the findings of the Enquiry Officer has been assailed. 5. The Labour Court permitted the litigating sides to lead ...
Tag this Judgment!