Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Dec-19-2014
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra, aggrieved by judgment and order passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded on 30th August, 1995, thereby acquitting the Respondents for the offence punishable under section 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: (i) That, the complainant Vandanabai w/o Satyanarayan Thakur is the resident of Gadipura, Renuka Mandir, Nanded. Vandana has two sons namely Dhanraj and Dhanprakash. She has one daughter by name Rajkumari. Vandana's husband Satyanarayan is electrician by profession and does the work of repair of fans and electric motors. At the time of incident, Vandana was residing with her husband and children in the house in Gadipura area. Satyanarayan has two married sisters namely Vimalbai and Karunabai. (ii) Accused and complainant Vandana at the relevant time were residing in the same Wada situated at Gadipura. Accused Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6 are the sons of accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jul-31-2014
1. The Appeals arise out of Judgment of conviction passed against the Appellants-accused (hereafter referred as accused- with numbers as given to them in the trial Court and mentioned above in the cause title) by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in Sessions Case No.76 of 1999, on 18th January 2000. The 13 accused were convicted for offence under Section 365 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.). Additionally accused No.13 was convicted for offence under Section 368 of I.P.C. However, trial Court passed order of acquittal of accused Nos. 1 to 13 of offence punishable under Section 363, 364-A read with 34 of I.P.C. For offence under Section 365 of I.P.C. the sentence imposed was of simple imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.1500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. For offence under Section 368 of I.P.C., sentence imposed was simple imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.1500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Dec-24-2014
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the State, challenging the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 25.09.1995 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No. 124 of 1992, thereby acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: The case of the prosecution is that the deceased [a deserted married woman] was residing with her parents at Fekari. The parents of deceased agreed to purchase a house and earnest amount Rs.2,000/- was paid. But sale deed was not executed. Accused are related to both purchaser and seller. A serious dispute arose in between deceased and her family members and accused. Due to this, accused on 14.08.1991 around 2.30 set the deceased on fire resulting in her death. She was taken to Hospital by her grandmother and other relatives. She died on 15.08.1991. Two dying declarations were recorded; one by Police Head Constable and other by E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : May-03-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri D.S. Bagul on behalf of the petitioners. I have heard Shri R.B. Muley and also Shri Ashok Patil, learned Advocates and also Shri R.B. Mule, Advocate on behalf of the respondent in this matter. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. The respondent-workman is an employee of the petitioner Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (here in after referred to as œMSRTC?). He was appointed as driver. He was charge sheeted on 06-09-2002 primarily for misbehaving with a lady passenger during the night journey. After receiving his reply, the petitioner proceeded to conduct a domestic enquiry against him, as per their Discipline and Appeal Procedure Rules (here in after referred to as œ D and A Rules?). 4. After the conclusion of the enquiry, the charges levelled upon the petitioner were held to be proved. He was subjected to the punishment of permanent stoppage of three (3) increments. He preferr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Feb-18-2014
1. The applicants are the accused in S.T.C. No. 651/2005, pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Navapur [District : Nandurbar]. The said case is in respect of offences punishable under Section 153-A of the IPC and Section 295-A of the IPC. The applicants made separate applications (Exhibits 16 and 17) before the Magistrate, contending that the charge sheet had been filed beyond the period of limitation, and that, the cognizance of the alleged offences could not be taken in view of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [For short, "the Code"]. The said applications were rejected by the Magistrate by a common order dated 26-3-2013. Being aggrieved thereby, the applicants have approached this Court by filing the present Application, invoking the inherent powers of this Court. The applicants pray that the order passed by the Magistrate be quashed and set aside and the applications (Exhibits 16 and 17) be allowed. 2. I have heard Mr. G.S. Rane, the learned Counsel fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Feb-12-2014
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of parties. 2. In the present petition the petitioner, a widow, has prayed for quashing of the process of appointment of Anganwadi Karyakarti/Sevika for mauja Ardhapur, District Nanded, initiated by the respondents vide notice dated 19.7.2012. The petitioner has also prayed for ancillary reliefs like that of consequential appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti/Sevika. The petitioner has prayed for interim relief for stoppage of the recruitment process. 3. This petition came to be filed on 4.9.2012 and this Court on 24.9.2012 has granted time upto 22.10.2012 to respondents no.1 to 3 for filing reply. The matter was adjourned from time to time and as affidavit in the petition was not filed, on 19.12.2012, the Court has passed following order: "Respondents shall file affidavit-in-reply within four weeks. Stand over to 18.1.2013. The appointment to the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti/Sevika, if any, in the interveni...
Tag this Judgment!