The Criminal Court dismissed the criminal application summarily, holding that the Trial Court's reasoning was correct and the respondent had sufficiently established a probable case to be exonerated.
Summary dismissal of the criminal application.
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 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.815 OF 2012.
Shri. Gajanan Laxman Fonde
...Applicant.
Vs.
Shri. Dilip Raghunath Patil and another
...Respondents.
Mr. A. M. Kulkarni, Advocate for applicant. Mr. Makarand Bakore, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. Ajay S. Patil, APP for State.
CORAM : M. L. TAHALIYANI, J. DATE : 25th NOVEMBER, 2014.
P.C. :-
1/2
BGP
2
Rs.26,000/- as against the liability of the respondent No.1 to the extent of rupees more than seven lakhs. In my opinion, the reasoning given by learned Trial Court appears to be correct. The respondent No.1 was not under obligation to establish his case beyond all reasonable doubts. He had probablise his case before the Trial Court and that was sufficient to exonerate the respondent No.1. In my opinion, there is no scope for interfering with the judgment of the learned Trial Court. Hence, application is summarily dismissed.
(JUDGE)
2/2
BGP
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court which exonerated the respondent on probation of fact.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri. Gajanan Laxman Fonde
Shri. Dilip Raghunath Patil
M. L. Tahaliyani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
