Court : Mumbai Nagpur
..... clinic, innocently goes along with him on the scooty. accused no.1 joins them. they go to the house of accused no.1, change the vehicle and, on a motor cycle, they travel on the highway and thereafter, take the child in the interiors. the unsuspecting child is done away to death by smothering. they remove his t-shirt so that ..... . the man told suresh that he had been asked by his mother to bring him to the hospital. based on the said assertion, suresh accompanied the man on his motor cycle. accordingly, the mother lodged complaint with police station. in the night of the same day, the mother received a call on her mobile phone from one shankar demanding ransom of ..... the accused no.1 rajesh along with one another person and one minor boy had come on a scooty. they parked the scooty in courtyard and thereafter took his motor cycle and went away. 28. the evidence of pw.9 divya chandel is at exh. 47. the witness is taking education in adarsha vidyalaya of village patansawangi. she states that the .....
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!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!