Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Pravin S. Patil, J
Mohammed Javed Abdul Wahab – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of impugned commitment order (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. parties' arguments on recording reasons under section 323 (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. interpretation of sections 323 and 325 crpc (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. opinion on guilt must be evidence-based (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. remand for fresh reasoned order on commitment (Para 14) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for both sides.
2. By the present Application, the Applicant has questioned the order dated 30/4/2024 passed below Exhibit-1 in RCC No. 224/2018 (State V/s Mohd. Javed & Ors.) by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buldhana, whereby the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions on the ground that offence under Section 467 of Indian Penal Code is punishable upto life imprisonment which may extend to ten years i.e. of severe nature, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate is empowered only to inflict punishment upto seven years. While exercising the powers, no reasons are recorded to justify the commitment of proceeding to the Sessions Court.
3. The undisputed facts of the present case is that Informant/Suman Rajput lodged a complaint against the p
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
