Criminal writ petition concerning disputes over government scheme amounts between trustees was dismissed for lack of merit as no other beneficiaries complained of non-receipt, and respondent No.1 had expired
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.
wp-440-10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
rpa
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 440 OF 2010
Smt. Kasubai Rodu (Dukale) Patil .. Petitioner Vs. Trambak Kashiram Dukale & Anr. .. Respondents
Mr. S. M. Kamble, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. S. Pednekar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.3 – State.
CORAM : K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.
DATED : AUGUST 6, 2013.
P.C. :
Heard.
February, 2008 directed process against accused nos.3 to 5 but
did not issue process against the respondents. Same was questioned in the revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge – 1, Malegaon, who rejected the revision on 13th July, 2009 and hence, present Writ Petition. Now the controversy will
1/2
wp-440-10
have to be centered as against respondent no.2 Trambak. On perusal of record, I do not see any error of both the Courts. The tussle between the earlier Trustees, subsequent Trustees has invited the problem. If amounts are not paid to the legitimate people under the government scheme, there should have been a representation from such beneficiaries, however, barring the complainant – petitioner, there is no grievance of not receiving amounts earmarked for such beneficiaries. No merits. Writ Petition dismissed.
(K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.)
2/2
Smt. Kasubai Rodu (Dukale) Patil
Trambak Kashiram Dukale
K. U. CHANDIWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
