Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MADHAV J.JAMDAR
Kanchan Anil Satpute – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to discharge application in corruption case (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. serious allegations of financial misconduct (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. insufficient evidence for claim of discharge (Para 5 , 7) |
| 4. verification of financial transactions (Para 10 , 12) |
| 5. conclusion on prima facie involvement (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
1. Heard Mr. Sagar Tilak, learned Counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Amit Munde, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2.
2. The challenge in this Criminal Revision Application is to the Order dated 25th April 2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, ACB, Pune below Exhibit-48 in Special Case No. 640/2023. By the impugned Order, the said Application bearing Exhibit-48, filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 (“Cr.P.C”) for discharge from the offence punishable under Sections 120-B , Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and under Section 13 (2) read with Sections 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Applicant i.e. Accused No.6-Mrs. Kanchan Anil Satpute has been rejected.
3. It is the main contention of Mr. Tilak, learned Counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant is working as a Teach
The court upheld that substantial evidence exists for charges of financial misconduct against the Applicant, justifying refusal of discharge.
The court emphasized that the charge against an accused must be sufficient to prove guilt, and mere participation in financial matters with a spouse does not establish abetment.
The court upheld the necessity of trial for charges framed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, emphasizing that prima facie evidence supports the petitioner’s involvement in fraudulent acti....
At the stage of framing charges, the court must apply its judicial mind to the material placed on record and be satisfied that the commission of the offense by the accused was possible.
The court has the power to weigh the evidence to determine if a prima-facie case against the accused has been made out, and the statement of a witness recorded under Section 164 of the Code can be us....
At the discharge stage, the court must determine if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused based on the prosecution's evidence, without conducting a mini-trial.
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
