SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Bom) 1801

Ashok Gyanchand Vohra – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Judgment

PALSHIKAR, J.

( 1 ) THE above writ petitions were heard by us and the judgment was reserved. Then I prepared the judgment of the Bench in November, 2005 and circulated it to my learned colleagues on the Bench. However to my dismay, i was informed by both my colleagues that they do not agree with the view taken by me on the presumption that they agree with me. I then read the majority view rendered by Honble Shri Justice D. B. Bhosale. Having given my anxious consideration to the views expressed I found it impossible to agree with the majority view. Hence this opinion.

( 2 ) I regret my incapacity to convince my learned colleagues to the view that I propagated. In my humble opinion, the majority view has the result of virtually destroying the safeguards provided under the MCOC Act. The majority view reads several things into the Act which are not legislated. It has the effect of permitting the Special Court under the Act not only to take cognizance of private complaint alleging commission of offences under the MCOC Act and order investigation under section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code when section 23 of the MCOC Act specifically bars it.

( 3 ) SPECIAL Court is not a Co















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top