Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard, finally. 2. By way of this criminal application, the applicant is challenging the order passed below Exh.1 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 83 of 2012 passed by learned J.M.F.C. Kopargaon which is now registered as R.T.C. No. 121 of 2012 thereby issuing process against the applicant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of I.P.C. and the judgment and order dated 14.05.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon in Criminal Revision Application No. 22 of 2013, by which the order of issue process passed by the Magistrate, is confirmed. 3. Brief facts, giving rise to the present criminal application are as follows:- a) The applicant is working as police constable posted at police station Kopargaon since 2011. Respondent No.2 came to be arrested in connection with Crime No. 65 of 2012 and after his arrest, he was produced before the J.M.F.C. Kopargaon. Respondent No.2 has filed complaint before...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. This matter was heard at length on 15.6.2016 and 16.6.2016. On 16.6.2016, this Court has passed the following order:- 1. The order of issuance of process of the learned Magistrate is on the basis of taking cognizance of a complaint u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. by invoking its powers u/s 190(1)(a). By the impugned judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule dated 01/08/2015, the order of the learned Magistrate dated 21/08/2014 has been quashed and set aside primarily on the ground that Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. was not complied with as there was no recording of verification of the complainant. 2. In this backdrop, it is necessary to peruse the record. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that he would apply for a certified copy of the verification of the petitioner as has been recorded by the lear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 01.04.2013 by which Miscellaneous Application No.1/2013, filed by the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay in preferring an appeal, has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli. 3. The Petitioner contends that pursuant to the complaint filed by the Petitioner against Respondent No.2 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 409, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Regular Criminal Case No.68/1999 was adjudicated upon by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalamnuri. By the judgment and order dated 23.02.2011, Respondent No.2/ Accused was acquitted of the offences. 4. The grievance is that pursuant to the said judgment, the State did not prefer an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Hingoli. After the Petitioner got the knowledge of the judgment, it had approached ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Two Appeals are filed by the original claimants and remaining two Appeals are filed by the State Govt. to challenge the Judgments and Awards of L.A.R. No. 1243/2002 and 1244/2002, which were pending in the Court of the Civil Judge [Sr.Division], Osmanabad. As the compensation is enhanced u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act [for short, 'Act'], State Govt. has challenged the decision and as the compensation is not given as per some sale instances proved by the claimants, they have filed the Appeals. Both sides are heard. 2. The lands of both the claimants are acquired for the construction of residential quarters for the servants of State Govt. 40 R. land of claimant from Reference No. 1243/2002 is acquired from S.No. 220/4/b. 20 R. portion from the same land of the claimant from Reference No. 1244/2002 is acquired for the same purpose and for the purpose of construction of road and for aforesaid purpose one more land of 30 R. portion from S.No. 212/2/6 of the claimant from Reference No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
A.V. Nirgude, J. 1. All these Criminal Applications and Criminal Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing by consent of all the parties, and since the point raised in all these cases is more or less similar, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For the purpose of disposal of the cases, we would utilise facts of Writ Petition No. 1027 of 2015 as representative. We understand that in most of the cases the facts are similar and the petitioners / applicants are similarly placed. 2. On 14th May, 2015, the petitioner was found transporting larg quantities of pouches of tobacco which is called 'Gutka' in common parlance, pouches of pan-masala in a truck. The truck was stopped by respondent no. 4, who is Food Safety Officer of Osmanabad district. He alleged that he not only seized the goods but even lodged a police complaint alleging that the petitioner had committed violation of Government Notification, dated 15th May, 2014, prohibiting certain acts pertaining to Gutka/Pan Masal...
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
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
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 9.7.2013, by which his Complaint (ULP) No.5/2008 has been dismissed. 3. The petitioner is a Civil Engineer. He has been issued with a show cause notice on 30.3.2007. He retired on 1.4.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. A chargesheet setting out the charges against the petitioner is dated 24.7.2007, which is obviously issued after the retirement of the petitioner. 4. The issue, therefore, raised before this Court is as to whether disciplinary proceedings can be initiated after the retirement of an employee. The issue raised is no longer res integra in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank and another v. Rajinder Lal Capoor (AIR 2007 SC 2129). 5. Considering the above, having heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length on 7.12.2015 and again today, I am to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner-Municipal Corporation is aggrieved by the order dated 29.07.2015 delivered by the Labour Court below Exhibit U/2 in Complaint (ULP) No.12/2014 by which the second show cause notice dated 14.03.2014 issued by the Petitioner/ Management has been stayed. 3. The Petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 06.10.2015 delivered by the Industrial Court in Revision (ULP) No.42/2015 by which the revision petition of the Petitioner has been dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length. 5. The issue involved is that the Respondent/ Employee was served with the second show cause notice dated 14.03.2015 along with a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report dated 10.02.2014 and the same has been stayed by the Labour Court. 6. It is not disputed that the charge sheet cum-show cause notice was issued to the Respondent/ Employee. H...
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!