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
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
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
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 present appellant is convicted by the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Aurangabad on 22.8.2000 in Special Case No. 2 of 1995. The appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default he is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default he is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case is as under: On 18.1.1994, PW 1 Limbaji Sonawane lodged his complaint (Exh.24) with Anti Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad. Sum and substance of the said complaint is that, at village Chinchwan he and his brother Kisan are having one agricultural fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. By the present appeal, the appellants are challenging their conviction and sentence as imposed upon them by the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Aurangabad, dated 1.2.2000 in Special Case No. 12 of 1994. The appellants in this judgment will be referred to by their original position. Appellant no.1 Manik s/o Dajibaji Bhatkar is accused no.1 and appellant no.2 Shrimant s/o Dharma Bansode is accused no.2. By the impugned judgment and order of conviction, accused no.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 12 r/w 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. Accused no.2 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default to suffer rigorous...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners extensively. Counsel for Respondent No.1 repeatedly called, absent. Learned APP has urged for time to ascertain as to whether powers of appointing and/or removing the petitioners, vest with Director General of Police. Rule made returnable forthwith 2. Respondent No.1 - Shaikh Anwar Shaikh Rashid filed a complaint, for offence under Sections 504, 506 rw. 341 of Indian Penal Code, against the police officers, the petitioners. 3. The gravamen of complaint is on 25.06.2008, feeling enraged by a complaint presented to the National Human Rights Commission, the petitioners herein came to village Bharadi. The petitioner No.1 started abusing in filthy language and respondent No.1 was carried to Sillod Rural Police Station, where the petitioner No.2 was present. Petitioner No.2 also allegedly abused the respondent No.1 and also threatened to involve the respondent in a false case. Thus, the grievance of the respondent No.1 was, he was ille...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The petition is filed to challenge the decision given by the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Revision No.185/2012. The Sessions Judge has set aside the order of issue process made by Judicial Magistrate, First Class in RCC No.1765/2010 against the present respondents. The process was issued for offences punishable under sections 341, 342, 323 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. Respondent No.1 was working as Police Inspector in the office of Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad and respondent No.2 was working as Police Sub-Inspector in the police station at the relevant time. Both the sides are heard. 2. Both the sides have produced the copies of some documents. A private complaint was filed by petitioner before J.M.F.C., Aurangabad for aforesaid offences. She has made allegations that she was called to Osmanpura Police Station by contacting her on mobile phone on 1.9.2010 at about 1.00 p.m. It was informed to her that she was called in connection with the complaint received ...
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!