Cri.Appln.5381/2012 v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Arms Act, 1959 ss. 3, 25
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 11, 185
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In the circumstances, the applicant is allowed to withdraw the present application and to file similar application in the Sessions Court at Aurangabad, being a designated Court, as per the provisions of Section 11 and 185 of the Cr.P.C., enumerated in the aforesaid notification.…
Judgment
First Class (Railway), Mukundwadi, Aurangabad and the Sessions Court, Aurangabad.
In the circumstances, the learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant would again approach the Sessions Court, Aurangabad, being a designated Court and seek the appropriate relief. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Aurangabad, vide order dated 17.10.2012, dismissed the similar application of the applicant, solely for the reason that the crime is not registered against the present applicant at Aurangabad, under the impression that the crime is registered in regular way and not by the Anti Terrorist Squad.
In the circumstances, the applicant is allowed to withdraw the present application and to file similar application in the Sessions Court at Aurangabad, being a designated Court, as per the provisions of Section 11 and 185 of the Cr.P.C., enumerated in the aforesaid notification. (vvr/5381.12criappln)
( M.T. JOSHI, J. )
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arms Act, 1959 — ss. 3, 25; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 11, 185.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 12 Dec 2012. The bench was M T JOSHI.
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.