Criminal case where the High Court refused leave to appeal against a Special Court's acquittal. The court found the acquittal not patently erroneous as mere money acceptance did not prove illegal demand.
Leave to appeal refused. Application dismissed. Appeal deemed dismissed.
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.
( 1 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 557 OF 2009
The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS
Arun Narayan Shimpi
RESPONDENT
Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the applicant/State. Mr. B.R. Kedar, advocate for the respondent.
[CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.]
[DATE : 3rd September, 2010]
PER COURT :
( 2 )
was arranged. The defence of the respondent was that he had not demanded any amount from the complainant and that the amount was accepted towards the saving certificate to be issued under a scheme as per directions of the higher authorities.
Judge seems to have duly considered the attending circumstances and the defence version, which is corroborated
( 3 )
by the defence witness. The mere acceptance of the money by
the respondent could not be regarded as sufficient ground to infer that he had demanded the said amount as illegal gratification. The impugned judgement does not suffer from prima facie patent error as such. Consequently, leave to appeal is refused. The application is dismissed. The appeal be deemed as dismissed.
[V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE
NPJ/criapln557-2009
1 issue framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal under section 379 CrPC should be granted against the acquittal of the respondent.
State of Maharashtra
Arun Narayan Shimpi
V.R. Kingaonkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
