Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Per Court: All these criminal appeals take exception to the judgment and order dated 18/10/2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.554/2002. For the sake of convenience, accused numbers are referred according to their serial numbers as mentioned in charge (Exh.20). By the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court, accused no.1 Vijay Kisanrao Mate, accused no.4 Umesh Sampatrao Dahake, accused no.9 Kiran Umraoji Kaithe, accused no.10 Kamlesh Sitaram Nimbarte, accused no.13 Dinesh s/o Devidas Gaiki and accused no.15 Raju Vitthalrao Bhadre came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302, 120-B read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 147 of Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) The State of Maharashtra has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 683 of 2013, dated 30th March, 2013, thereby directing investigation to be conducted as per the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on a complaint filed by respondent herein. Since during the pendency of the present application, First Information Report came to be registered by Police Station, Dhantoli Nagpur, the application has been amended so as to raise the challenge to the registration of the said First Information Report. Consequently, the State has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present application arises as under. The respondent, who is an Officer belonging to I.P.S. Cadre, addressed communication to the Senior Police Inspector, Dhantoli Police Station, Nagpur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The Indian Railways is before this Court in the present writ petition. The challenge in the petition is to the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.1238/1994 dated 16.06.1999. 2. By the impugned judgment, the tribunal had partly allowed the original application filed by the respondent and thereby respondent's dismissal from service was converted into the compulsory retirement with effect from the date of order of dismissal. 3. Such of the facts, which are necessary to address the challenge raised by the petitioner in respect of the judgment impugned borne out from the record are stated hereunder. 4. The respondent herein was working as Travel Ticket Examiner in the South Eastern Railways. On 04.05.1983, a memorandum bearing No.COM/OS/ClIII/TTE/NGP/SR/83/14 was issued to the respondent from the office of Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Nagpur South Eastern Railway. By the said memorandum, it was informed to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 12/07/2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Case No. 18 of 1997, whereby the accused was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The accused was also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs 2000/and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for nine months. 2. Heard the submissions at the bar. 3. The facts, in nutshell, are as under: The accused was working as a District Manager, Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic Tribes development Corporation Ltd., Nagpur. On 22/06/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Matter is taken up for hearing with consent of learned Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. Rajnish Vyas, Advocate for petitioner, Mr. Mehroz Pathan, APP for the respondent no.1 and Mr. A.M. Rizwy, Advocate for the respondent no2. 3. The petitioner questioned the order dated 27.07.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.6, Nagpur in Summary Criminal Complaint No.5314/2008. The following order passed by learned Trial Court is as under: Read the complaint, verification of the complainant and documents filed by the complainant on record. Heard Advocate Mr. Rizvi for the complainant. On perusal of the complaint and verification of the complainant, it seems that the complainant have made out the prima facie substance for issuance of process for the offence punishable under sections 504, 506 and 509 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, issue summons to accused no.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under sections 504,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 12/07/2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Case No. 18 of 1997, whereby the accused was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The accused was also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs 2000/and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for nine months. 2. Heard the submissions at the bar. 3. The facts, in nutshell, are as under: The accused was working as a District Manager, Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic Tribes development Corporation Ltd., Nag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: 1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order passed on29/11/2002 by Judge of the Special Court under Prevention of Corruption Act in Special Case No.9 of 1993 thereby convicting the present appellant, who was accused No.1, of the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Name of respondent No.2 deleted as per order dtd.7/2/2003. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as the P.C. Act, for short). 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are as under.: 2.1 Complainant Prashant Rajendra Wankhede was proprietor of a bakery which he ran under the name and style as, Golden Bakery. The appellant-accused No.1 had assisted the complainant in obtaining loan of Rs.34,000/- from a Bank for the purpose of his bakery. The complainant thought that his bakery got a permanent registration from the District Industries Centre, Nagpur (D.I.C., Nagpur, for short). The appellant was then working as Industries Inspector with D....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant seeks an order for quashing and setting aside of First Information Report bearing Crime No. 3073 of 2015 dated 25.03.2015 punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 1988 Act), registered with Police Station, Frezarpura, Amravati. 2. This Court had issued notice on 17.04.2015 and directed that the charge sheet shall not be filed without its permission. Thereafter, non-applicant “ State of Maharashtra has filed reply on 05.05.2015. In this background, we have heard Shri Shashank Manohar with Shri Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Mehta, learned APP for the non-applicant finally by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith with consent. 3. FIR No. 3073 of 2015 has been questioned only on the ground that it is second FIR. This Court is not called upon to find out whether allega...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. The petitioner though has initially approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 19.6.2012 passed by the respondent no.3 and the order dated 22.6.2012 passed by the learned In-charge Principal District and Sessions Judge, Amravati, the petitioner had by way of amendment challenged the vires of Rule 22(i) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Remission System) Rules, 1962 being ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. The undisputed facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:- On 24.8.1996 the petitioner came to be arrested in connection with a murder case. The petitioner stood convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on 23.6.1997 and was put in Amravati Central Prison. Taking into consideration the good conduct of the petitioner, the petitioner came to be transferred to Morshi Open Prison on 14.5.2008. The petitioner had earned remission while he was at Central Prison, Amravati, so also at Open Prison, Morshi. How...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 21/11/1997, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in a Special Case No. 3 of 1989, whereby the original accused Wamanrao Bakaramji Pawar, Head Constable, B. No. 755 was convicted of offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month on each count and fine in the sum of Rs. 500/- for offence punishable under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and in default of fine amount, he was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Heard submissions at the bar. 3. Facts, in nutshell, as under: - On 14/05/1987 at about 10.00 a.m., quarrel had taken place between Wasudeo Hande (PW3) and one Arun Shembe. Mr. Arun Shembe and his brother namely Sudhakar Shembe had beaten up Mr. Wasudeo (PW3) by cycle chain and in...
Tag this Judgment!