Pathik Patel v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Hence, the application is allowed in terms of
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 378(4), 390
Judgment
Mr. S.V. Vora for applicant. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for State. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : August 01, 2007. Date : August 01, 2007. Date : August 01, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard. This is an application for special leave to appeal under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C. I have perused the order of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai on 14/5/2007 in C.C. No. 6417/SS/05 and I am satisfied that this is a fit case to grant special leave to appeal. . Hence, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). :2: . Admit the appeal. . Call for R & P. . Action under Section 390 of Cr.P.c. against accused nos.2 and 3 be taken by the trial court. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the application is allowed in terms of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 378(4), 390.
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.