Judgment · High Court · 2009
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ss. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 378(3)
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal APPP No.119/2009 In Criminal Application No.2925/2009 [State of Maharashtra .vrs. Ashok Dalpatrao Ingale] ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. A.D. Sonak, APP for appellant/State. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 19, 2009. Heard. By the present application, applicant/State has prayed for condoning 27 days delay in preferring an appeal against the judgment and order of an acquittal acquitting the respondent for commission of offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent had chosen to remain absent in spite of service. The same indicates that the respondent is not interested in opposing the application. Having regard to the same and having to the reasons mentioned in the application the same is allowed. The delay of preferring an appeal is hereby condoned. List the matter for considering the question of according the leave under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. CA stands disposed of. Gulande JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — ss. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 378(3).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 19 Nov 2009. The bench was P D KODE.
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.