Partly allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Narhari Londhe and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Nov 2014APPLN/1091/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application seeking leave to appeal against an acquittal, the Single Judge rejected the application regarding accused Nos. 2 to 5 but allowed it for respondent No. 1, noting the principal allegations against him.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal against acquittal of respondent No. 1 allowed; application regarding respondents 2 to 5 rejected.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Vikas Narhari Londhe and Ors. — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Mhi 1

¶2

APPLN-1091-12.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1091 OF 2012

¶5

The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant vs. Vikas Narhari Londhe & Ors. ... Respondents (Orig. accused)

¶6

Mr. S.S.Pednekar, APP, for the applicant- State. Mr. P.G.Sarda, for respondent No.2.

¶7

Mr. Siddharth S. Gadre i/b. Mr. Vijay Killedar for respondent Nos. 1,3 4 & 5.

¶8

CORAM: SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV,J. DATE : 18th November, 2014.

¶9

P.C .

¶10

Heard the learned APP and the learned counsel appearing for the

¶11

respondents.

¶12

The State being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Solapur, dated 6.6.2012 thereby acquitting all the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC has filed this application seeking leave to appeal.

¶13

Perused the records and the notes of evidence. Exhibit 51 is the dying declaration recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Solapur on 8.3.2009. The second dying declaration is at Exhibit 53 which is recorded by the Head

¶14

Mhi 2 APPLN-1091-12.sxw

¶15

Constable of Jail Road Police Station. The Special Judicial Magistrate has recorded statement at about 2 a.m., whereas the Constable has recorded the statement at 2.40 a.m. This is, prima facie, apparent on the face of record that the principal allegations are against the respondent No.1. The judgment and order of acquittal as against respondent Nos. 2 to 5 is concerned, does not warrant any interference.

¶16

Hence, the application seeking leave to appeal challenging the acquittal of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 is rejected.

¶17

However, the application seeking leave to appeal against respondent No.1 is allowed. Since the respondent No.1 is being represented by a counsel who undertakes that the respondent No.1 would remain present at the time of hearing, this Court is not inclined to issue an order under Section 390 of Cr.P.C.

¶18

Call for record and proceedings.

¶19

(SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)

The State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Narhari Londhe and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Narhari Londhe 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

Bahadur @ Sonu Vijendra Singh Gurjar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahul Yogesh Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Avinash Parshuram Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sharad Krishna Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sharad Krishna Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sharad Ananta Gadhave