Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Jun-06-2016
1. This revision application has been filed to seek copies of the record of C.A. No.U-3733/ E-122 R.No.122 dated 4-4-2016, which, according to the applicant, was filed in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 by the office of the Government Pleader. Normally, the application would either be allowed or dismissed for the reasons to be stated in the order to be passed. There would also not be any objection for the Court if the applicant wanted to withdraw the revision application. This could have been permitted by this Court if it had been a simple revision application without making any serious allegations assailing the record of this Court and without mud-slinging the sitting Judges and the officers of this Court. The revision application along with the documents and pursis on record contain all sorts of wild allegations amounting to scurrilous attack on the sitting Judges, the officers of this Court, including the Government Pleader, and the record of this Court. Such allegations...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Jun-30-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. These two appellants are before this Court since they are aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, dated 3rd of April, 2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge - 4, Nagpur in Session Trial No.548 of 2009. By the said judgment, the appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were directed to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- by each of them and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The prosecution case which was unfurled during the course of the trial is stated herein under :- The Criminal Law was set into motion on 9th of August, 2009 by Smt.Sk.Jamila wd/o Sk.Abid, first informant, by lodging her report at Exh.62. When first informant had been to Police Station Lakadganj that time Pandurang Rangari, A.S.I., (PW 8) was on duty as a Night Officer. He registered the Crime vide Crime ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Jul-27-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-9, Nagpur, dated 20th of March, 2014, in Session Trial No.41 of 2012, the appellants are before this Court. The appellant no.1 was accused no.1 before the Court below whereas the appellant nos.2 and 3 were accused nos.2 and 3, respectively, during the trial. They will be referred by their original position in the present judgment. By the impugned judgment, the accused no.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Accused nos.2 and 3 though acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, stood convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 read ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Jun-07-2016
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. Felt aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed in Sessions Trial No.4/2009 by which the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nagpur convicted the appellant, he is before this Court in this appeal. 2. By the impugned order of conviction, the appellant is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and on that count, he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months. 3. The facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are stated hereunder:- Mohan Makde (PW4) is the Sarpancha of village Welgaon. On 13.08.2008, when he was available at his house, some boys from the village had come to him at 12.30 noon. They inform...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Feb-08-2016
Oral Judgment:(B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to decide their representations and to take a policy decision of relaxation of any of the conditions which would come in the way of granting any right, title or interest in respect of forest lands occupied by them. 3. The petitioners have further approached for a direction to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to grant right and title and 'patta' in respect of forest lands occupied by the petitioners and others on the line of the 'patta' granted to the agriculturists in the adjacent districts of Bhandra and Gadchiroli as per the provisions under Sections 4(3), 4(5) and 4(6) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). 4. It is the contention of the petitioners tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Jul-07-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Session Case No.84 of 2012 on 20th of January, 2014 and sentencing him for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, the appellant is before this Court. 2. The prosecution case, as it is unfurled during the course of trial, is as under - When Bapuji Sayam (PW 10), Head Constable, attached to Police Station Chamorshi was discharging his station diary duty on 22nd of May, 2012, the appellant came in the Police Station and gave oral report. The said oral report was reduced into writing and it is at Exh.44. Shri Sayam registered an accidental death vide A.D.No.25 of 2012. The gist of the said oral report of appellant is that his second wife deceased Mamta committed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Sep-06-2016
Oral Order: 1. Heard Shri S. S. Ghate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Taiwade, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no. 1. 2. Though respondent no. 2 is duly served, none appears for the respondent no. 2. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 4. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Labour Court, Buldana dated 3-3-2006 in Complaint (ULP) No. 546/2004 and judgment and order dated 2-2-2015 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Akola in Revision ULP No. 39/2006. 5. The facts giving rise to the present petition can be summarized as follows. The petitioner in response to an advertisement calling applications for the post of Instructor in the Industrial Training Institute at Mehkar submitted his application as he was duly qualified. The petitioner was selected and appointed temporarily on 4-1-1998. An appointment order was issued on 2-6-2000 whereby the petitioner was appointed on the fixed scale o...
Tag this Judgment!