Baliram Motilal Yadav v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- A P DESHPANDE
Outcome
Disposed of
Application stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 420
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ss. 13(1)(d), 13(2)
- Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005
Judgment
Mr.S.V.Marwadi, Adv. For the Applicant. Mr.P.A.Pol, APP For the State. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 18/2/08 PC: Despite service none appears for the respondent. Copy of service of notice taken on record and marked `X' for identification. The applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC, sentenced to suffer RI for six months and pay fine of Rs.2500/-. The applicant is also convicted for offence punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sentenced to undergo RI for six months and pay fine of Rs.2500/-. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that fine amount has already been deposited. It is also stated that the applicant was on bail during the trial and he has not misused the liberty. Applicant has also been granted bail after conviction for a period of two months which period expires on
Operative part
20.2.08. Judgment and order of conviction is passed on a plea 1 bargaining which is to be dealt with under Chapter XXI-A which goes to insert section 265A to section 265L vide the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005 which has been brought into force with effect from 5.7.06. Various contentions are raised which require serious consideration. Hence I direct that the applicant be released/continued on bail on the same terms and conditions on which he was released during the trial on executing fresh bail bonds. Application stands disposed of.
18.2.08 2
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Application stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 420; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — ss. 13(1)(d), 13(2); Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005.
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.