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

2004 Supreme(Bom) 1560

A.M.KHANWILKAR
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW Delhi – Appellant
Versus
ABDUL KARIM LADSAB TELGI – Respondent


( 1 ) HEARD Counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent, Mr. Nimbalkar waives notice for respondent No. 1. Mr. Pradhan waives notice for respondents 2, 3, 5 and 6. Mr. Mundargi waives notice for respondents 2, 3, 5 and 6. Mr. Mundargi waives notice for respondent No. 4. Mr. More, A. P. P. waives notice for respondent No. 7.

( 3 ) AS short question is involved, the matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent.

( 4 ) THIS petition under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Special Judge under Maharashtra Control of organised Crimes Act, 1999, Pune, dated december 12, 2003 below Exhibit 156 in special Case No. 2 of 2003. The State of maharashtra, through Superintendent of police, S. I. T. Pune, had filed application before the Special Judge, being Exhibit 156, praying that they may be permitted to record the voice samples of the respondents 1 to 6 herein in the jail premises itself, where the said respondents were lodged and further direct the said respondents to co-operate in that behalf. The respondents 1 to 6 have been na
















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