✦ Bombay High Court · 21 Dec 2012

WITH Mr. Mukund Chandrakant Ajabe & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1935 OF 2012 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1361 OF 2012 WITH Mr. Mukund Chandrakant Ajabe & Ors. ... Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents. Ms. Madhavi Tavnandi for the Applicant. Ms. S.V. Sonawane, APP for the State. Mr. Rajesh Desai, Spl. P.P. for CBI. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 21st DECEMBER 2012. P.C. :- Heard. Notice. Learned APP for the State and Counsel for CBI waives service for the Respondents.

#2. The Appellants have been convicted in Special Case No.27 of 2004 by the learned Special Judge (CBI) ACB, Pune, for offence punishable under Sections 120-B r/w. 420 and 471 of IPC.

#3. For offence punishable under Section 120-B r/w. 420 and 471 of I.P.C., the Appellants are directed to undergo R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default clause. For offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C., they are 2 APPA 1935.12.sxw directed to suffer R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default clause. For offence punishable under Section 471 of I.P.C., they are directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

#4. The learned Counsel submits that the Appellants had deposited fine amount (receipts are annexed).

#5. Considering above facts in terms of Section 389 of Cr.P.C., the Appellants be released on same bail with fresh PR bond to be executed before the learned Special Judge.

#6. Bail Application allowed as above.

#7. Admit the Appeal.

#8. Learned Counsel for CBI and APP waives service for the State. Call R & P. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 420, 471; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 389.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 21 Dec 2012. The bench was K U CHANDIWAL.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Criminal Application No. 1935 of 2012). ← Search more judgments