Back
MANGESH S.PATIL
Darasing @ Maruti Vakilya, Bhosale – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mangesh S Patil, J. - This is an appeal under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter the MCOC Act) being aggrieved and dissatisfied by judgment and order returned by the learned Special Judge, MCOC, Aurangabad convicting the appellants under Section 3(1)(ii) and Section 3(4) of the MCOC Act and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 12 years under Section 3(1)(ii) and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 3(4) and in addition imposing a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- on each, count in default sentencing them to further rigorous imprisonment of two years on each count.
2. The facts which lead to the Appeal may be summarized as under:
In the night intervening 16.01.2001 and 17.01.2001 the appellants committed dacoity in village Kothewadi Tq. Pathardi, District Ahmednagar and even committed rape on few women for which Crime No.08/2001 was registered for the offences punishable under Section 395, 342, 376(2)(g), 354, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. During the investigation of that crime it transpired that the appellants were involved in organized crime wherein charge sheets were filed and the courts had taken cognizance. A
None of the provided case laws explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, criticized, or otherwise treated as bad law. Both cases appear to be decisions affirming the constitutionality and validity of the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, and the facts established therein. There is no indication in the descriptions that either case has been subsequently overruled or negatively treated in later rulings.
[Followed]
None of the cases explicitly state that they are being followed in subsequent rulings. However, the language in case Dinesh Mahadev Bhondve VS State of Maharashtra - 2007 0 Supreme(Bom) 508 suggests that the Court upheld the prosecution's case and the constitutionality of the law, which could imply that it aligns with or supports existing legal standards at the time.
[Distinguished]
No cases are explicitly distinguished from other cases in the provided descriptions.
[Criticized / Questioned / Reversed / Overruled / Abrogated]
None of the case laws explicitly mention being criticized, questioned, reversed, overruled, or abrogated. Both cases seem to stand as valid decisions without any indication of judicial disapproval or overturning.
Both cases appear to be current and authoritative based on the provided descriptions. However, without references to subsequent judgments or legal commentary, the treatment pattern remains unclear. Specifically, there is no explicit mention that either case has been overruled or criticized in later rulings, but the absence of such information introduces some uncertainty about their current legal standing.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
