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

2006 Supreme(Bom) 10

S.C.DHARMADHIKARI
BHARA TINA TH NAMDEO GAVAND – Appellant
Versus
LAKHSMAN MALI – Respondent


ORAL JUDGMENT :- Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent heard forthwith.

2. Petitioner is the original complainant. He is aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag dated 15th February, 2003 in Criminal Revision Application No. 138 of 2001.

3. The above Criminal Revision Application was preferred by the original accused (respondent Nos. 1 to 11 before me) challenging an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigad, Alibag in Summary Case No. 1040 of 2001 dated 5th December, 2001.

4. Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the process to be issued against accused for offences punishable under section 7 of Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Civil Rights Act). Process was issued upon the complaint of petitioner before me.

5. Petitioner in the complaint alleged that he and his family members are residing at Mouje Phopheri post Narangi Taluka Alibag, Dist.Raigad. The name of complainant's father is Namdeo Bali Gavand. He expired on 28th July, 1999. The deceased father during his life-time was a tenant in respect of agricultural land situate at Mouje Chinchwadi, S. Nos. 13/2 (23/2). Accuse




































































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