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

S.B.SHUKRE
Bhupendra @ Golu – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Shri S.P. Dharmadhikari, Shri U.P. Dable, Advocates
For the Respondent:Shri T.A. Mirza, Advocate

JUDGMENT

S.B. Shukre, J.—Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The allegation is that the present applicant along with other accused persons, being a member of an organized crime syndicate, jointly made assault upon the complainant-Amol Mehar on 29/05/2015, in which assault, the complainant suffered some injuries but managed to survive those injuries. On the basis of complaint lodged by Amol Mehar, initially offences punishable under Sections 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 294 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3, 4, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act were registered. Later on, the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short ‘the MCOC Act’) were also invoked. Accordingly, the offence punishable under Section 3(4) of the MCOC Act came to be additionally registered against this applicant and other members of the crime syndicate.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has invited my attention to the view taken by this Court in the order passed on 7th July, 2016 in Criminal Application (BA) No.424/2016 in the matter of Dinesh Bhondulal Baisware vs. State of Maharash

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