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 Nagpur
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. The appellant who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Penal Code) has challenged judgment dated 31/07/2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.82 of 2012. The case of the prosecution as can be gathered from the material on record is that on 08/05/2012 a call was received by the City Police Station, Chandrapur that a foul smell was coming from a house owned by one Harishchandra Chamate. The appellant along with his family was residing therein. Said Harishchandra came on the spot after which the lock of the door was broken by the police. There the dead body of one Panchafula, the sister of Harishchandra was found. On that basis, said Harishchandra lodged his report on 08/05/2012. 2. After the report was registered, investigation was carried out. A chargesheet was duly filed in which the appellant was arrayed as an a...
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
A.S. Oka, J. 1. The Petitioner appearing in person has raised important issues concerning implementation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the MV Act ) and the Rules framed thereunder. Shri A.Y. Sakhare, learned senior counsel and Shri Warunjikar, learned counsel who were appointed to espouse the cause of the Petitioner, while assisting the Court, have made detailed submissions. Certain submissions are also made by the Petitioner appearing in person. Shri S.K. Shinde, Special Government Pleader who represents the State has not taken adversarial stand and has assisted the Court. He has also made detailed submissions. 2. Under the MV Act, there are different categories of vehicles. In this Public Interest Litigation, the issues raised are mainly about the transport vehicles as defined under Subsection (47) of Section 2 of the MV Act. The main issue raised in this Public Interest Litigation is as regards the manner in which the transport vehicles are checked for...
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
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. 2. The applicant, who is an accused no.1 in C.C.No.2995/SS/2013, C.C.No.1348/SS/2012 and C.C.No.1350/SS/2012, has invoked the powers of this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned orders dated 24.4.2015 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Gr. Mumbai, dismissed the revision applications Nos.502 of 2014, 299 of 2014 and 101 of 2014 for quashing the process against the applicant for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The brief facts necessary to decide these applications are as under: The respondent no.1- complainant had filed complaints against the applicant, one Mr. Ketan Raj and Jeevandeep Hospital and Critical Care Centre (hereinafter referred to as Jeevandeep Hospital) for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is alleged that the applicant and the other two accused were in need of finance and had therefore approached the complainant com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
K.R. Shriram, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner is attributing direct negligence on the part of the respondents regarding the performance of respondents' duties, which, according to the petitioner was the proximate cause for losing the fingers of his right hand. The petitioner, therefore, is praying for (a) direction to the respondents to take action against the employees, agents and doctors responsible for the condition of the petitioner, (b) direction to the respondents to provide to the petitioner employment and (c) direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation. 2. The facts in brief are as under:- On 1st October, 2002 around 0.55 A.M., pursuant to an attack of convulsion, the petitioner, who at the time the petition was filed was about 21/22 years of age, was admitted in Medical Unit-III of Rajawadi Hospital under Dr. S.R. Oraskar, Senior Honorary Physician. The respondent no.2, i.e., Bombay Municipal Corporation, has established an...
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!