Criminal Appeal No. 468 of 2004 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
:1: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.468 OF 2004 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders. of Coram, appearance, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP. for the State. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE,J. DATED : 12/1/2006. P.C. P.C. P.C.
This is an appeal filed by the State impugning a judgment and order passed by the Special Judge, Gadhinglaj on 24.12.2003 acquitting the accused Nos. 1 to 7 for offences punishable under Section 143, 427, 336 read with 149 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(iv)(x) and (XV) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On perusing the judgment and order, it is seen that the same is based upon cogent and acceptable reasons. The incident took place on 10.4.2002. This complaint is said to have been lodged on 11.4.2002. This complainant is not forthcoming. :2: The prosecution proceeds on the footing that the complaint was lodged on
24.7.2002 which is more than three months after the incident. In view of the gross delay in lodging of the complaint and for other reasons mentioned in the judgment and order not a fit case to interfere. Hence, leave refused. Consequently the appeal stands dismissed.
(R. S. MOHITE, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 143, 149, 336, 427; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 12 Jan 2006. The bench was R S MOHITE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.