Allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Nanabhua Laxman Karanjule and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Nov 2014ALS/32/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Application by the State seeking leave to appeal against an acquittal in Sessions Case No. 688 of 2011. The High Court granted leave for the appeal and admitted it, directing that it be heard along with the Confirmation Case and other companion appeals.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to the State for appeal against the acquittal. Appeal admitted.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Nanabhua Laxman… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

als-32-14

pdp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 32 OF 2014

¶5

The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Nanabhau Laxman Karanjule and ors. .. Respondent

¶8

Smt. V. R. Bhosale, APP for applicant-State.

¶9

Mr. Mahesh Vaswani a/w Dharini Nagda i/by Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶10

Mr. Mahesh Vaswani i/by Dharini Nagda and Anushree Kulkarni for respondent no.3.

¶11

Mr. Shishir Hiray a/w Dharini Nagda i/by Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for respondent no.5.

¶12

Ms. Apeksha Vora for respondent no.4.

¶13

CORAM: P. V. HARDAS & G. S. KULKARNI,JJ.

¶14

NOVEMBER 27, 2014.

¶15

P.C.

¶16

This is an application at the behest of the applicant/State

¶17

seeking to challenge part of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge,

¶18

Greater Bombay, dated 21/3/2013 in Sessions Case No. 688 of 2011 acquitting the present respondents.

¶19

We have heard learned APP on behalf the State, Mr. Vaswani,

¶20

¶21

als-32-14

¶22

learned counsel representing respondent nos.1, 2 and 3, Ms. Apeksha Vora, learned counsel representing respondent no.4 and Mr. Shishir Hiray, learned counsel representing respondent no.5. Upon perusal of the findings recorded by the trial court, in our opinion, this is a fit case for granting leave. We are also hearing the Confirmation Case as well as the other appeals filed by the co-accused. We accordingly allow this application and grant leave as prayed for.

¶23

Appeal filed by the State stands admitted.

¶24

Mr. Vaswani, accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3, Ms. Apeksha Vora, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.4 and Mr. Shishir Hiray, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.5. In that light of the matter, therefore, no action is directed to be taken under Section 390 of Cr. P. C. against the respondents. This appeal filed by the State to be heard along with the other companion matters, including the Confirmation Case No. 3 of 2013.

¶25

(G. S. KULKARNI,J.) (P. V. HARDAS,J.)

The State of Maharashtra v. Nanabhua Laxman Karanjule and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Nanabhua Laxman Karanjule 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

Abdul Rauf Hassan Khatib Vs Shakila Mohd.Shafi Khan and Ors.

Abdul Rauf Hassan Khatib Vs Shakila Mohd.Shafi Khan and Ors.

Manoj Prabhakar Lohar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajesh Maruti Mohite Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajesh Maruti Mohite Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nandkishor Narayan Sabrekar Vs the State of Maharashtra