The State of Maharashtra v. V/s. Mr. Amit Dinesh Jha & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 01 Aug 2011
- Bench
- K U CHANDIWAL, NARESH H PATIL
Outcome
Dismissed
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 ss. 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(4)
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. We have perused observation of learned Judge in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the impugned judgment. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court. There is no case on merits. The Application for leave to file appeal is refused. Consequently…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.517 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra. ... Applicant. V/s. Mr. Amit Dinesh Jha & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for the State. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATED : 1st AUGUST 2011. P.C. :- Heard. Perused record.
This appeal is filed against the order of acquittal for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999.
Operative part
We have perused observation of learned Judge in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the impugned judgment. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court. There is no case on merits. The Application for leave to file appeal is refused. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
R & P to be returned forthwith. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.) 2 APEAL 517.11.sxw
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Consequently, the appeal is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 — ss. 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(4).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 01 Aug 2011. The bench was K U CHANDIWAL, NARESH H PATIL.
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.