Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. This appeal is filed against judgment and order of Special Case No. 8/1995 which is decided by Special Judge, Osmanabad. The appellant is convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [ "PC Act" for short]. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that original complainant Prabhakar Kardhore was working in army at the relevant time and he had some matter pending with Tahsil Officer Omerga, District Osmanabad. The complainant belongs to village Kate-chincholi, District Osmanabad where there was earthquake on 30.9.1993. It is the case of the complainant that he was having a separate house in the village and it collapsed in the earthquake. It is the case of the complainant that partition had taken place amongst complainant and his two brothers in the year 1984 and due to partition he was having 1 H. 34 R. agricultural land in his village. 3. For rehabilitation of persons affected due to afo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. By the present writ petition, under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court for the reliefs in terms of prayer clause (B) to (E) which read as follows : B. To quash and set aside the resolution no.29 dtd. 29/07/2004 and notice of compulsory retirement of petitioner issued by the respondent no.1 MCU/Est.2/420/04, dtd. 31/07/2004 issued by the respondent no.1.C. To direct the respondent no.1 and 2 to award promotion to the post of Senior Clerk to the petitioner w.e.f. 21/03/1985 and subsequent promotions and service benefit as per law and in view of the seniority and reservation against the handicapped and OBC and other consequential service benefits.D. To direct the respondent no.1 to grant two days leave of dated 20/01/2004 and 21/01/2004 which has been refused and treated as absent from duties.E. The respondent no.5 may kindly be directed to hold inquiry against the respondent no.1 and 2 regarding their mis management, irregularities, corr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Reported in :
Court held - appellant could not have dreamt that shadow witness would be present, his statement already should be prepared in his name - there was no force in appeal – trial court had rightly came to conclusion that prosecution case was proved beyond reasonable doubt - Trial court was appointed through High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee to appear on behalf of appellant, his fees was quantified at prescribed amount, to be paid by High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee - Criminal Appeal was dismissed.
Paras : (17,18)
Case Referred:
Vishwanath s/o. Karnuji Londhe Vs. The State of Maharashtra 1995 Cri.L.J. 25 (Para 11).
Comparative Citations:
2016 ALL MR (CRI) 2257, 2016 (4) MAH.L.J(Cri) 100,
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Aggrieved by the conviction for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short "the Act") vide impugned judgment and order dated 16th June, 2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, Aurangabad in Special Case No.3 of 1996, original accused has preferred the present appeal. The appellant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act; and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act. Hence, the present appeal. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under:- That, during the relevant period, the appellant was working as Revenue Inspector at village Waluj. The complainant PW 2 - Uday Patil was, during the relevant period, was Administrator of the Gram Panchayat, Waluj. For some period, he was Sarpanch of the Gram Pan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. In Sessions Case No.28 of 2013 the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shrirampur has awarded death sentence to the accused therein, the proceedings in the said case, have been therefore forwarded to this Court for confirmation under section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused has also preferred an appeal, which was admitted by this Court and same is registered as Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2014. As both the matters are arising out of one judgment, the arguments in both the matters are simultaneously heard and we find it expedient to decide both the matters by common reasoning. However, since the very conviction has been challenged by the convict, the only proper course would be to first decide the Criminal Appeal so filed by the accused, for the reason that, only if the order of conviction is maintained by this Court, the further question will arise whether or not the death sentence awarded by the trial Court is sustainable and is to be confirmed or otherwis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Special Case No. 16/1995, which was pending in the Court of Special Judge, Aurangabad. By the decision dated 12.10.2000, the Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for offences punishable under section 7 and section 13 (1) (d) r/w. 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'P.C. Act' for short). Both the sides are heard. 2. The original complainant had complained to Fuse Call Center of M.S.E.B. in the first week of February 1995 that his meter of electricity was faulty. Accused/appellant Shri. Gaikwad and one Shri. Pardhi were working as Lineman, as public servant, in Fuse Call Center of M.S.E.B. They visited the residential place of the complainant to check the meter and after checking it, they expressed that the meter was burnt and so, there was need to replace the meter. These two Linemen informed the complainant that it was necessary for him to pay Rs. 400/- as the charges for rep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: (A.H. Joshi, J.) 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties. 2] Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned Advocate for the respondent nos.1 and 2. 3] The facts involved in the case are summarized as follows: a] The petitioner is employed as Junior Engineer with the respondent no.1. b] While the petitioner was serving at the Distribution Centre at Aurangabad in Chhawani Sub-Division in Division No.1, it is alleged that on 1.3.2011, he demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.5,000/- as bribe and was caught while doing so (red handed) by Police personnel of Anti Corruption Department, Aurangabad. c] Crime No.3005/2011 under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the petitioner. d] By communication dated 4.3.2011, the petitioner was kept under suspension in contemplation of the action under Maharashtra State Electri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
R.M. Borde, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. Petitioners are functioning as Additional Government Pleaders / Additional Public Prosecutors / Assistant Government Pleaders/Assistant Public Prosecutors in the High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. According to petitioners, tenure prescribed under their appointment orders has not expired and would come to an end in June 2016 and thereafter, but for the reason mentioned in the order impugned in this matter, issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under Rule 30(5) of the Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1984, (for short, Rules of 1984?), their appointment came to be terminated before completion of prescribed tenure. 3. Petitioners claim that they have been appointed in observance of the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1984 by the Respondents and Notifications, in that regard, have be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The revision is filed against judgment and order of Waqf Suit No. 52/2007, which was pending before the Waqf Tribunal, Aurangabad. The suit was filed by present petitioners for relief of declaration and injunction. The order dated 18.4.2007 made by the Chief Officer of the Waqf Board in case No. 17/2005 was challenged and declaration was claimed that the order is illegal, null and void. Relief of injunction was claimed against the Chief Officer of the Waqf Board to prevent him from taking possession of immovable property on the basis of the order dated 18.4.2007. The Tribunal has dismissed the suit. Both the sides are heard. 2. There is dispute between the petitioners and respondents about the properties bearing C.T.S. Nos. 1199, 1205, 1201 and 1202 situated at Narayangaon, Tahsil Junnar, District Pune. Respondent Hajimiya s/o. Abdul Kadar Qureshi is a Namazi and he is also involved in the management of Shahi Jumma Masjid of Narayangaon. It is his contention that the aforesaid prope...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. This appeal is challenging the Judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad, dated 25th July, 2007, in Special Case No. 07 of 2002, in which the appellant was the accused. The appellant was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hence be referred to as 'the Act').2. The appellant, at the relevant time, was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector at the Police Chowki of Government Medical College Hospital, Aurangabad, under City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad. The facts leading to the litigation, are as under :3. Prior to 3rd December, 2001, an accident took place, in which the complainant's brothers sustained injuries. They were treated at the Government Medical College Hospital, Aurangabad. After they were discharged, they and their family members thought of lodging a criminal case against the owner of the property where the accident had taken place. They...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Special Case No. 6/1995 which was pending in the Court of Special Judge, (Additional Sessions Judge) Jalgaon. The appellant is convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) r/w. 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act' for short). The maximum sentence of imprisonment of three years is given for the offence punishable under section 13 (2) of the PC Act and fine is also imposed. The substantive sentences are made to run concurrently. The application is filed by the appellant for permission to produce some record like copy of his appointment order. Both the sides are heard. 2. The original complainant Pandharinath Choudhary was a retired clerk of Municipality Jalgaon. Land admeasuring 2.85 Hectors from Gat No. 118 situated at village Paldhi was standing in the name of his wife, Durgabai Mahajan. They were in need of money and so, they wanted to sell the land....
Tag this Judgment!