Bombay High Court
APEAL/1534/2004 of DHARMAVIJAY CHANDRU SHEDAGE Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA on 22 December 2006
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINALCRIMINALCRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1534 OF 2004 Dharmavijay Chandru Shedage. ..Appellant. V/s. The
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYCRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1534 OF 2004
Dharmavijay Chandru Shedage.
..Appellant.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra.
..Respondent.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1547 OF 2004
Raju Vasant Patkar.
..Appellant.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra...Respondent.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.80 OF 2005
Abdul Razak Salim Inamdar @Faruq Shaikh.
..Appellant.
V/s.The State of Maharashtra...Respondent Mr.S.V.Marwadi with Ms.Sunita Sharma for appellant inAppeal No.1534 of 2004(org.accused No.1)
Mr.Vikas Kolekar for appellant in Cr.Appeal No.1547 of2004(org.accused No.2)
Ms. Razia Shaikh for appellant in Cr.Appeal No.80 of2005(org.accused No.3).
Dr.S.S.Tatkare, APP for State in all the matters.
CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J
DATE : DECEMBER 22, 2006.
P.C. :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. For the reasons separately recorded in theJudgment pronounced in open court today, followingoperative order is passed.
.In the circumstances, the appealspreferred by accused Nos. 1 and 2 aredismissed. The finding of guilt recorded bythe trial Court as against Accused Nos.1 and 2for offences punishable under sections 392 r/w397 of I.P.Code is upheld. As a consequences,the order of sentence imposed by the lowerCourt is also upheld being minimum sentenceimposed for the offences in question.
.The appeal filed by the accused No.3being Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2005 however,succeeds. The finding of guilt recordedagainst the accused No.3 by the trial Court isset aside. Instead, the accused No.3 isacquitted of the charge of having committedthe offence punishable under section 392 r/w397 of I.P.Code by giving benefit of doubt.Accused No.3 be released forthwith, unless required in connection with some otheroffence.
.Muddemal be disposed of in accordancewith the law.
.All concerned to act on the copy of theoperative order passed by this court to be issued dulyauthenticated by the office.
All concerned to act on the copy of the