Allowed

The State of Mah v. Shivaji Ananda Bharodkar and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Dec 2013APPLN/3763/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition under Section 390 CrPC was filed for leave to appeal seeking review of acquittal obtained by Additional Sessions Judge against convictions for IPC offences. The court examined record deficiencies caused by non-submission of trial records, which were later rectified by the Additional Sessions Judge. The court held that the procedural lapse and revelation of departmental accountability al

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal against the acquittal was granted and appeals were admitted.

The State of Mah Vs Shivaji Ananda Bharodkar… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

Cri. Appln. No. 3763/12 & Ors.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRI. APPLN/3763/2012

¶5

[The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shivaji Ananda Bharodkar and Ors.] WITH

¶6

CRI.APPLN/3774/2012 WITH CRI.APPLN/3778/2012 WITH CRI.APPLN/3772/2012 WITH CRI.APPLN/3770/2012 WITH CRI.APPLN/3789/2012 WITH CRI.APPLN/3787/2012 WITH CRI.APPLN/3776/2012

¶7

Mrs. V.A. Shinde, APP for applicant/State.

¶8

Mr. P.V. Mandlik, Senior Counsel h/f. Mr. Amol S. Gandhi, Mr. V.A. Bagdia h/f. Mr. C.P. Sengaonkar, Mr. L.K. Pradhan, Mr. S.M. Godsay, Advocates of respondents/accused,.

¶9

CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 18th December, 2013.

¶10

ORDER :

¶11

The applications are filed against judgments and orders of Criminal Appeal Nos. 47, 48, 56, 58, 59, 62, 63 and 50 of 2011 delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the judgments and orders of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, by which the present respondents were convicted

¶12

Cri. Appln. No. 3763/12 & Ors. 2

¶13

and sentenced for offences punishable under sections 406, 468, 120-B of Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted all the respondents. The State wants to file appeals against the decisions of learned Additional Sessions Judge and so, the applications are filed for leave to file appeal. Both the sides are heard.

¶14

This Court has gone through the record like judgments delivered by the learned J.M.F.C. and judgments delivered by Additional Sessions Judge and also the some record made available by the Trial Court. This Court was required to pass specific orders and this Court was required to direct the learned District Judge to start inquiry against the concerned, who were not sending the record to this Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has now informed that he has found the persons responsible for the same and he is taking departmental action against those staff. These circumstances are required to be mentioned as most of the accused are working in Court as Stenographers in different districts of this region.

¶15

The chargesheet was filed against the respondents, who are employees of the State Board constituted for taking G.C.C. Examinations for testing shorthand and typing skill. There

¶16

Cri. Appln. No. 3763/12 & Ors. 3

¶17

are six other employees and the remaining are the employees of the Court, who had appeared for such test. The test was held in Aurangabad for Marathi shorthand.

¶18

Secret information was received that some malpractice was being done by the employees of the Board and the candidates, who had appeared for the examination and they were tampering with the record of examination. Action was taken by police. It was noticed that the accused/employees of the Board had prepared new answer sheets from the remaining accused to enable them to pass the test. Some record in that regard was recovered and answer sheets were recovered, which were in the custody of peon and two other persons viz. Prabhakar and Laxman. The cash amount of Rs. 78,000/- was also recovered from Prabhakar and Laxman. Some recovery was made after recording statement under section 27 of Evidence Act.

¶19

Thus, the record collected by the investigating agency shows that there was the original record of examination and then there was the duplicate record created to enable the candidates to pass the test. The amount of Rs. 5000/- each was charged by the employees of the Board for enabling the candidates to prepare such record.

¶20

Cri. Appln. No. 3763/12 & Ors.

¶21

¶22

The learned APP took this Court through the procedure which is mentioned by the learned Magistrate in the judgment, which is required to be followed by the employees of the Board. This procedure is not at all considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The circumstance that only the candidates would have been benefited due to creation of such record is also not considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The reasoning given by the Additional Sessions Judge is not at all convincing. This Court holds that opportunity needs to be given to the State to take decision of the matters in appeal which can be filed in this Court.

¶23

So, all the applications are allowed. Leave is granted to file appeal.

¶24

8. The appeals are admitted.

¶25

Comply the provisions of section 390 of Cr.P.C.

¶26

[ T. V. NALAWADE, J. ]

¶27

ssc/

The State of Mah v. Shivaji Ananda Bharodkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Mah v. Shivaji Ananda Bharodkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajkumar Dhunichand Sharma Vs the State of Mah

Jagannath Shivram Salve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Bhivarao Wadkute Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramchand Totaram Multani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Pallavi Rajendra Dhadge Vs Rajendra Keshav Dhadge and Others

Gopal Sonaji Damare Vs Dnyandeo Sonaji Narwade and Others