The State of Maharashtra v. Jagannath Ramchandra Beleshe
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 04 Jul 2007
- Bench
- V C DAGA
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 302
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 306(4)
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. In the result, Revision Application is allowed in terms of this order with no order as to costs. DAGA,J.) (V.C. DAGA,J.) (V.C. DAGA,J.) (V.C. ( 4 )
Judgment
therein. Heard rival parties. Perused application and order impugned
This revision is directed against the
16.4.1998 passed Exh.34 Sessions Case No. 107 1993, whereunder application seeking permission applicant-prosecution summon accused no.2 Hanumant Sakharam Khandagale examine approver behalf prosecution rejected mainly grounds; (1) accused no.2 Hanumant Khandagale tendered pardon relation offence punishable Section 302 section 34 I.P.C. occasion accept pardon tendered ( 2 ) accused, (2) and that the accused no.2 was not detained under Section 306 (4) of the Cr.P.C.
Learned A.P.P. brought to my notice a specific
30.1.1993 passed Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara before accused no.2 produced investigation papers along with application
30.1.1993 together undertaking accused no.2 disclosure of the case and also expressed his willingness to seek pardon.
Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara detailed
30.1.1993 tendered pardon accused no.2 accused no.2 accepted pardon tendered him. The record page Nos. 39, 40
Therefore, ground application rejected holding the pardon was neither tendered nor accepted, does not stand to scrutiny of Law.
The second ground on which the prosecution non-suited accused no.2 detained Section 306 (4) Cr.P.C., record ( 3 ) Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wai issued direction Jailer Authority Satara, District Prison, Satara requiring receive detain accused no.2 custody. The warrant issued further direction detain further record. accused no.2 arrested
17.1.1993. factual material available record, second ground against The In prosecution in the impugned order also does not stand to the scrutiny of Law.
So far as framing of the charge is concerned, hardly effect prosecution examine accused no.2 approver. The charge framed against void. In matter, impugned quashed set aside and the prosecution is permitted to examine accused no.2 as approver.
In the result, Revision Application is allowed in terms of this order with no order as to costs. DAGA,J.) (V.C. DAGA,J.) (V.C. DAGA,J.) (V.C. ( 4 )
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 302; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 306(4).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 04 Jul 2007. The bench was V C DAGA.
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.