The State of Maharashtra v. Manohar Mangorao Zond & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. We have heard the learned A.P.P. on behalf of the applicant and perused the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. We have also perused the record and proceedings, particularly the two dying declarations at Exh.22 and 25. Upon such perusal, according to us…
Judgment
Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned A.P.P. for the applicant. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 30/08/2010 PER COURT :
This is an application filed by the applicant/State seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, dated 01/02/2010, in Sessions Case No.27/2007, acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable u/s. 498-A, 302 r/w. 34 of The IPC.
We have heard the learned A.P.P. on behalf of the applicant and perused the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. We have also perused the record and proceedings, particularly the two dying declarations at Exh.22 and 25. Upon such perusal, according to us this is a fit case for granting leave and accordingly, we allow this 2 application and grant leave for filing of an appeal.
Appeal stands admitted.
Action u/s. 390 of The Cr.P.C. be taken by the Trial Court by issuing bailable warrant of Rs.10,000/- each against the respondents. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/AUGUST 2010/cri.appol.1411-10
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 390.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 30 Aug 2010. The bench was A V POTDAR, P V HARDAS.
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.