The High Court allowed an application for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. against accused nos. 1 and 2, admitting the appeal against them only, after reviewing the acquittal and witness depositions.
leave under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. granted against accused 1 and 2; appeal admitted against them.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
PDP
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2361 OF 2008 IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders
Mrs.M.M. Deshhmukh, APP for applicantState.
CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE &. SMT. ROSHAN DALVI,JJ.
August 12, 2009.
P.C.
Heard Mrs. Deshmukh, the learned APP.
We have perused the reasoning set out in the impugned order of acquittal. We have considered the depositions of the witnesses and particularly that of the Medical Officer. We are satisfied that leave to appeal is required to be granted against accused nos.1 and 2.
Hence, the application is allowed and
leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. is hereby granted against accused nos. 1 and 2 and the appeal is admitted against them only.
Action under Section 390 of Cr.P.C. by the Sessions Court to follow.
(SMT. ROSHAN DALVI,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. should be granted against accused nos. 1 and 2.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
State
Accused 1
Accused 2
B.H. Marlappalle
Roshan Dalvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
