Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
..... the charge was framed and plea was recorded. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
..... petitioner herein is not guilty of offence, and consequently, directed that applicant be enlarged on bail by the said order dated 26th january, 2010. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
..... unless there is full corroboration to the evidence of p.w.1 complainant, it would not be safe to hold the appellant-accused guilty for the offences charges against her.the said peon who is alleged to have asked for rs.500/- has not supported the prosecution story. ..... if the evidence of prosecution is considered in its entirety, it does not lead to only conclusion that the appellant accused is guilty of offence alleged against her. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
ravindrav. ghuge, j. 1. heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 2. rule. by consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. we have heard the rival parties at length on 05/02/2014. in view of the earlier orders passed and the directions that we propose to give by this order, we do not find it necessary to advert to all the contentions put forth by the rival parties. we intend to consider those contentions which we find are relevant and therefore germane to the nature of the order that we propose to pass. 4. the petitioner had earlier filed writ petition no.8312/2011 which was decided by this court on 10.01.2012. thereafter, a review petition no.221/2012 was preferred by the aicte which was heard and decided by this court on 10.01.2013. aicte was directed by this court to issue letter of approval to the petitioner college. 5. writ petition no.10741/2012 was filed by the petitioner which came to be decided by a judgment of this court dated 30/04/2013. by the said judgment, certain contentious issues were noted by this court in paragraph nos.20 to 28. for clarity, it is necessary to reproduce the said paragraph nos.20 to 28 here-in-below :- "20 it is borne out from record that expert committee of aicte has visited petitioner no.2 college and conducted inspection. that, so far as visit of the expert committee, to the petitioner college on 24.04.2012, it positively recommends for granting extension of approval for all the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
s.s. shinde, j. 1. by this petition, under article 226 of the constitution of india, the petitioner takes exception to the detention order bearing no.2013/mpda/det-1/cb-09 dated 26.08.2013 issued under section 3(1) of maharashtra prevention of dangerous activities of slumlords, bootleggers, drug-offenders and dangerous persons act, 1981 by the commissioner of police, aurangabad. the petitioner has raised several grounds for seeking quashing of the detention order, however, in our opinion, it is not necessary to advert to all the grounds taken in the petition except ground no.b, which reads as under:- b. it ought to be held that, on 26th august, 2013 petitioner was already in judicial custody, as he made an accuse by an authority in c.r. no. i-34/2013. it is, therefore, unwarranted and unjustified to pass an order of detention while a person is in custody. this shows non-application of mind of the detaining authority. the petitioner says that there were no compelling reasons to pass the order of detention in as much as cogent material before the detaining authority to come to the conclusion that there is imminent possibility of petitioner's release on bail in near future. the order of detention is illegal and bad in law, ought to be quashed and set aside. 2. in response to ground no.b, in affidavit in reply of respondent no.3, in para 16, stated thus:- 16. with reference to para 11, ground 'b' of the representation, deponent submits that the detaining authority was aware about .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
..... however, the accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
..... appellant/ accused in criminal appeal no.19/2011, it can be seen that the proof of the exercise of right of private defence is not as onerous on the accused claiming such right as it is on the prosecution, and preponderance of probability in favour of such plea is sufficient and the court, while considering the issue of extent of the right of private defence, has to pragmatically view the fact situation and is not expected to weigh the circumstances in golden scales for that purpose. 26. ..... ghanekar for the appellants/ accused submitted that the prosecution has been guilty of suppressing the genesis of incident and none of the witnesses to the incident offered any explanation for the injuries sustained by ..... obligation on the courts judging the culpability of the accused persons to ascertain whether the act/s of every accused involved in the crime was/were done in the exercise of the right of private defence or not, if such plea is raised by anyone of the accused either before the trial court or before the appellate court. ..... backdrop, the observations made by the learned trial court that such injuries might have been caused in a free fight between two groups is nothing but a conjecture and, therefore, the plea of exercise of the right of private defence made by the accused warrants anxious consideration. 25. ..... such standard is not expected in answering the worth of the plea of exercise of the right of private defence in the present ..... the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
..... however, the accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
..... the learned additional sessions judge, aurangabad has, therefore, rightly reached to the conclusion that the appellant no.1 milind is guilty of offence punishable under section 302 of the indian penal code and has rightly sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. ..... been able to discharge its burden of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died due to poisoning, in our view, the trial court and the high court could not have held the appellants guilty just because the appellants have not been able to explain under what circumstances the deceased died. ..... also in our considered view, appellant no.1 milind cannot be held guilty for the offence punishable under section 498a of the indian penal code. ..... 2 to 5 and also appellant no.1 are guilty of offence punishable under section 498a and 506 (ii) r/w 34 of the indian penal code. ..... beyond reasonable doubt and it is only when this burden is discharged, the accused could prove any fact within his special knowledge under section 106 of the indian evidence act to establish that he was not guilty. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
b.p. dharmadhikari, j. 1. heard adv. mr. s.b. talekar, with adv. mr. m.s. nilwant for the petitioner; learned gp mr. s.v. kurundkar for respondent nos.1, 2 and 4; and adv. mr. k.c. sant for respondent no.3. 2. rule. rule made returnable forthwith. heard finally by consent. 3. by this petition, filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, the petitioner / student, a minor, through his mother, has approached this court challenging denial of respondent nos.1 and 2, to consider his eligibility for admission to m.b.b.s. course in state quota. the said denial is based upon provisions of rules 4.4, 4.5 and 9.1.4.2 of the neetug-2013 rules and hence, there is a prayer for declaring the same as ultra virus articles 14, 15, 21 and 29(2) of the constitution of india. submission, in brief is, the domicile of the petitioner in the state of maharashtra and accordingly his merit in the national entrance test needed to be considered and given due weightage. mere fact, that he has passed s.s.c. and h.s.c. examinations from andhra pradesh, can not disentitle him from seeking admission in state quota. 4. the mother of the petitioner, dr. sunanda w/o. lakshman gaddalay, is presently serving as a professor in conservative dentistry, midsr dental college at latur. the petitioner has annexed with petition, a document which shows that he is domiciled in the state of maharashtra. similar documents pertaining to his mother are also placed on record. 5. the petitioner has passed 12th science .....
Tag this Judgment!