Court : Mumbai Goa
By this appeal, the appellant (hereinafter, referred to as the accused) takes exception to the judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2008, passed by the Special Judge, at Mapusa in Special Criminal Case No. 1/2008, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the Act for short) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and in default, to undergo further imprisonment for one year. The accused has been granted set off in respect of the period of detention in terms of Section 428 Cr.P.C. 2. The appellant was accused No.2 in Special Criminal Case No. 1/2008 filed against two accused pursuant to a raid conducted by PW.7 Punaji Gawas, attached to the ANC Police Station, Panaji on the basis of a specific and reliable information received on 23.10.2007 that one lady and one man would be coming near Dipti's Bar and Restau...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: By this appeal, the appellant/accused takes exception to the judgment and order dated 29.4.2009 passed by Special Judge, NDPS, Court, Mapusa in Special Criminal Case No.14/2008 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months. The period of detention undergone by the accused during the investigation and trial, has been ordered to be set off in terms of Section 428 of Cr. P.C. 2. Briefly the prosecution case is as under;- On 5.2.2008 at about 4.00p.m, PW8, PI Suraj Halarnkar attached to Anti Narcotic Cell, Police Station at Panaji received specific information that one Nepali aged about 25 to 30 years would be coming to Caranzalem beach near Martin's B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: By this appeal, the appellant/accused takes exception to the judgment and order dated 29.4.2009 passed by Special Judge, NDPS, Court, Mapusa in Special Criminal Case No.14/2008 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months. The period of detention undergone by the accused during the investigation and trial, has been ordered to be set off in terms of Section 428 of Cr. P.C. 2. Briefly the prosecution case is as under;- On 5.2.2008 at about 4.00p.m, PW8, PI Suraj Halarnkar attached to Anti Narcotic Cell, Police Station at Panaji received specific information that one Nepali aged about 25 to 30 years would be coming to Caranzalem beach near Martin's B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Heard Mr. Khan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This appeal is filed by the accused of Special Criminal Case No. 12/2008 against the judgment, order and sentence dated 04-05/05/2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mapusa ('Trial Court') in the said case. The accused was tried for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act'). 3. Case of the prosecution was as under: Police Inspector Ashish Shirodkar (PW8), then attached to Anti Narcotic Cell Police Station, Panaji, Goa, on 05/02/2008, received an information to the effect that one male person of fair complexion, short height, strong built, wearing white coloured half sleeves shirt with brown strips and green coloured pant, aged about 30 to 35 years, will be coming near Petrol Pump Malpem, Pernem, Goa to deliver narcotic drugs i.e. charas to his pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment : 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respondents waive service. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition the IDBI Bank Ltd., which is a secured creditor, is challenging the order dated 24th July, 2014 passed by the District Magistrate / Collector, South Goa, District “ Margao, disposing of an application under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('Act of 2002', for short) 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner had sanctioned aggregated loan facility of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (rupees five crores only) to the respondent No.3 on 19th April, 1997, as per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties. As the respondent No.3 ('borrower' for short) has defaulted in the matter of repayment of the dues, the loan account was classified as a non-performing asset. It appears that the petitioner issued a demand noti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Mr. G. Agni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. P. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4. 2. The above Writ Petition seeks for a direction inter-alia to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 10.07.2014 and 30.10.2014 and the impugned notices dated 31.10.2011 and 20.11.2013 issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as the SARFAESI Act ) being illegal and bad in law. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioners are that the petitioner no.1 appointed one Mr. Ajay Verma, proprietor of M/s. Aesquire Estates to develop a plot of land belonging to the petitioner no.1. The said Mr. Ajay Verma availed a loan from the respondent no.1 by offering a security of the petitioners' land with building. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
The appeal is filed against Judgment and order of Special Case No.66/2010, which was pending in the Children's Court created for the State for Goa at Panaji-Goa. The appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under section 354 I.P.C. and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. He is also convicted for offence punishable under section 8 (2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of six months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be said as follows: The offence is committed against a girl child who was aged about 4 years at the relevant time. The accused was aged about 29 years and he was a married man. The father of the girl child was working as a security guard in campus known as œTropical Estate Private Ltd? at Morod, Sangolda and this complex is situated within the local jurisdiction o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No.15/2009 which was pending in the Sessions Court, North Goa, Panaji. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences punishable under sections 376 and 506 of I.P.C. The maximum sentence of imprisonment given is 10 years. Both sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of this appeal can be stated as follows: At the relevant time, the prosecutrix was 60 years of age. She was unemployed lady and she was not having her own shelter. She was leaving in Panaji Municipal market. She used to do petty work of fish vendors and shop owners to earn her livelihood and she used to sleep on the platform in the fish market. 3. The incident took place on the night between 27/12/2008 and 28/12/2008 when the prosecutrix was sleeping in the fish market after midnight. The accused came there and he removed the blanket which was taken for c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. By this appeal the appellant is challenging the judgment and order dated 3rd September, 2013 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Court), Mapusa, in Special Criminal Case No.14/2009. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act', for short), and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and, in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The period of detention already undergone, is directed to be set off. 2. The prosecution case may briefly stated thus, That on 17th January, 2009 at about 14.20 hrs., P.S.I. Punaji Gawas (PW-6) then attached to the Anti Narcotic Cell had received a specific reliable information that a male, native from Nepal, aged 20 to 25 years, fair complexioned of medium built, wearing long sleeves black col...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Mrs. Roshan Dalvi, J. 1. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. The petitioners have filed Petition No.403 of 2007 challenging the construction of a hotel by Respondent No.6 upon permission granted by respondent No.2 under orders dated 31st July, 1995, 8th October, 1998, 1st September, 2001 and 17th September, 2005 in respect of a specific plan dated 31st May, 1995 and the renewals thereto. Upon the prayer of quashing of these orders the petitioners require directions against respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to restore the original nature of the land upon which they have constructed the hotel in the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ). 2. Upon having seen that the hotel premises has been constructed in the No Development Zone (NDZ) of the CRZ without the approval of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MEF), which is mandatorily required, the petitioners have filed Petition No. 659 of 2010 for quashing the NOCs of respondent No.4 dated 16th September, 2008, 5th July, 2010 and 6th July, 2010 and constru...
Tag this Judgment!