All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 243 OF 2015 Samayadurai K. Agamudian. ..Petitioner. Versus The Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra and Others. ..Respondents. Mr. S. G. Kudale for the Petitioner. Mr. F. R. Shaikh, learned APP for the State. Mr. S. G. Surana for Respondent No. 5. Mr. Mahesh Vaswani, Mr. Javed Gheewala, Dharini Nagda, Anushree Kulkarni for Respondent No. 6 and 7. Coram : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. Date : February 2, 2015 . P. C. : Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks leave to amend the prayer clause. Leave granted. Necessary amendment be carried out within a week. Place the writ petition for admission on 16th February 2015. [SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 243 OF 2015 Samayadurai K. Agamudian. ..Petitioner. Versus The Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. S. G. Kudale for the Petitioner. Mr. S. G. Suvarna for Respondent No. 5. Mr. U. V. Kejriwal, learned APP for the State. Coram : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. Date : March 17, 2015 . P. C. : By the order dated 2nd February 2015, we granted leave to the Petitioner to amend the prayer clause. The Petitioner, however, not only amended the prayer clause but has also inserted paragraph No.11a to 11j in the main petition without seeking leave of the Court. Besides, the Petitioner without leave of the Court, has annexed Exhibit-F to N. Registry is directed to submit explanation in what circumstances, the Petitioner was allowed to carry out amendment by introducing paragraph 11a to 11j and annexe Exhibit-F to N, without leave of the Court to that effect. [SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 243 OF 2015 Samayadurai K. Agamudian .. Petitioner v/s. The Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S.G. Kudle for the petitioner Mr. S.G. Suvarna for respondent no.5 Ms. Dharini Nagda i/b Javeed Mohd. Gaus Gheewala for respondent nos. 6 and 7 CORAM: RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. DATED: 31st MARCH, 2015. P.C. We have gone through the explanation offered by Mrs. Mali, Section Officer. We accept the explanation, however, Section Officer is directed to be more cautious in future. Mr. Kudale, learned Counsel for the petitioner has carried out amendment contrary to the order dated 02.02.2015 hence, the paragraphs, which are inserted contrary to the order of amendment, shall be removed. Stand over to 6th April, 2015. (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) ( RANJIT MORE, J.)

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.243 OF 2015 Samayadurai K. Agamudian ..Petitioner. V/s. The Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.S.G.Kudle for the petitioner. Mrs.U.V.kejriwal, APP for respondent-State. Mr.M.S.Surana for respondent No.5. Mr.Mahesh Vaswani i/b. Mr.Javeed Mohd. Gaus Gheewala for respondent Nos.6 and 7. CORAM : RANJIT MORE AND V.L.ACHLIYA, JJ. DATED : 17TH DECEMBER, 2015 P.C. :- Heard learned counsel for the parties. At the outset, Mr.Kudle, learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his petition to the relief claimed in prayer (c). Statement is accepted. Mr.Kudale in this regard relies upon his application dated 29th November, 2013 (annexed at Exhibit-L, page 80 of the petition) seeking police protection, which is pending since last two years. Learned APP having taken instructions states that said application will be decided by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Protection Branch), Mumbai as expeditiously as possible. In the above circumstances, we direct the Deputy Commissioner (Protection Branch), Mumbai to dispose of the petitioner's application within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Order accordingly. Petition is disposed of accordingly. (V.L.ACHLIYA, J.) ( RANJIT MORE, J.)

Order - Status 2: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 15157 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO. 15158 OF 2018 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 15157 OF 2018 Mrs. Lata W/o. Hemant Garg .. Appellant/Orig.Plaintiffs Vs. Nehru Nagar Sukhsagar CHS Ltd. & Anr ..Respondent/Orig. Def. CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J. DATE : 7th August, 2018. P.C. :- 1. The appellant did not remove the office objections. The appellant has preferred an appeal, but there were office objections notified by the Registry. The learned Counsel for the appellant undertakes to remove office objections within stipulated period of two weeks. In case, appellant failed to remove the office objections, the appeal shall stands dismissed automatically without further reference to this Court. 2. In case office objections are removed, list this appeal for further process on 31st August, 2018. ( K.K. SONAWANE, J.)

Order - Status 8: Tandle IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 583 of 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.772 OF 2018 Mrs. Lata w/o Hemant Garg ... Appellant/ Orig.Plaintiff Versus Nehru Nagar Sukhsagar CHS Ltd. & Anr. ... Respondent/ Orig. Defendant. . . . . . . Mr. Sushil Upadhye i/b A. M. Saraogi for the Appellant. Mr. S. R. Patel for the Respondent No.2. . . . . . . CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 20th NOVEMBER, 2019 P. C. : 1] After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant at length, when this Court was not inclined to grant any relief, the learned counsel on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the present application unconditionally. Leave granted. 2] Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 3] In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, Civil Application No. 772 of 2018 does not survive and is accordingly disposed off. (A. S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 3161 OF 2022 Safia Akhtar Shaikh ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 3248 OF 2022 Mustafa Ismail Dandekar ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT WITH CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 223 OF 2023 In Cr. Anticipatory Bail Appln. 3161 OF 2022 Akshay Chandrakant Patil Through Authorized Representative I T Mangar ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....RESPONDENT A/W IA/222/2023 IN ABA/3248/2022. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 24th February, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 28/03/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 3161 OF 2022 Safia Akhtar Shaikh ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 3248 OF 2022 Mustafa Ismail Dandekar ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT WITH CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 222 OF 2023 In Cr. Anticipatory Bail Appln. 3248 OF 2022 Akshay Chandrakant Patil Through Authorized Representative I T Manager ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....RESPONDENT WITH CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 223 OF 2023 In Cr. Anticipatory Bail Appln. 3161 OF 2022 Akshay Chandrakant Patil Through Authorized Representative I T Mangar ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRIRAM MADHUSUDAN MODAK J DATE : 13th April, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 27/04/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 3161 OF 2022 Safia Akhtar Shaikh ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 3248 OF 2022 Mustafa Ismail Dandekar ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT WITH CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 222 OF 2023 In Cr. Anticipatory Bail Appln. 3248 OF 2022 Akshay Chandrakant Patil Through Authorized Representative I T Manager ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....RESPONDENT WITH CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 223 OF 2023 In Cr. Anticipatory Bail Appln. 3161 OF 2022 Akshay Chandrakant Patil Through Authorized Representative I T Mangar ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....RESPONDENT Mr. Nilesh Navale for Applicant in ABA/3161/2022 Mr. Chirag Chanani for applicant in ABA/3248/2022 Mr. Chintan Y. Shah for Applicant in IA/223/2023, IA/222/2023 Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRIRAM MADHUSUDAN MODAK J DATE : 12th June, 2023 P.C. : At the request of the learned Counsel for the Appellant(s)/ Applicant(s) / Petitioner(s) / Respondent No. stand over to 03/07/2023. Ad-interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 3161 OF 2022 Safia Akhtar Shaikh ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT WITH CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 222 OF 2023 In Cr. Anticipatory Bail Appln. 3248 OF 2022 Akshay Chandrakant Patil Through Authorized Representative I T Manager ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 3248 OF 2022 Mustafa Ismail Dandekar ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT WITH CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 223 OF 2023 In Cr. Anticipatory Bail Appln. 3161 OF 2022 Akshay Chandrakant Patil Through Authorized Representative I T Mangar ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....RESPONDENT Nilesh Navale for Petitioner for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRIRAM MADHUSUDAN MODAK J DATE : 3rd July, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 03/08/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3161 OF 2022 Safia Akhtar Shaikh ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 223 OF 2023 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3161 OF 2022 Akshay Chandrakant Patil through Authorized Representative I T Mangar Applicant / Intervenor In the matter between Safia Akhtar Shaikh Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3248 OF 2022 Mustafa Ismail Dandekar ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 222 OF 2023 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3248 OF 2022 Akshay Chandrakant Patil through Authorized Representative I T Mangar ..Applicant / Intervenor In the matter between Mustafa Ismail Dandekar ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Ms. Ilsa Shaikh i/b. Nilesh Navale, for the Applicant in ABA/3161/2022. Mr. Shyam Dewani a/w. Sachet Makhija i/b. Chirag Chanani, for the Applicant in ABA/3248/2022 (through VC). Mr. Chintan Shah, for the Intervenor in both ABAs. Mr. Avinash A. Naik, APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM : R. N. LADDHA, J. DATE : 21 JUNE 2024 P.C. . By consent, stand over to 15 July 2024. Interim protection granted earlier, if any, shall continue to operate till the next date. R. N. LADDHA, J.

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3248 OF 2022 Mustafa Ismail Dandekar ... Applicant v/s. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.222 OF 2023 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3248 OF 2022 Akshay Chandrakant Patil ... Applicant In the matter between Mustafa Ismail Dandekar ... Applicant v/s. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3161 OF 2022 Safia Akhtar Shaikh ... Applicant v/s. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.223 OF 2023 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3161 OF 2022 Akshay Chandrakant Patil ... Applicant In the matter between Safia Akhtar Shaikh ... Applicant Page 1 of 2 _______________________________________________ 15 July 2024 Digitally signed by SMITA JOHNSON GONSALVES Date: 2024.07.15 14:45:00 +0530 SMITA JOHNSON GONSALVES WITH v/s. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr Nilesh Navale, a/w. Mr Somnath Kale, for the Applicant in ABA/3161/2022. …. Mr Shyam Dewani, a/w. Mr Sachet Makhija, i/b. Chirag Chanani, for the Applicant in ABA/3248/2022 (through VC). …. Mr Chintan Shah, for the Intervenor in both ABAs. Mr Yogesh Y Dabake, APP, for Respondent State. Coram : R.N. Laddha, J. Date : 15 July 2024 P.C. : . The learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned APP jointly seek an adjournment. At their request, stand over to 5 August 2024. Ad-interim relief granted earlier shall continue to operate till the next date. (R.N. Laddha, J.) Page 2 of 2 _______________________________________________ 15 July 2024

Order - Status 20: Chitra Sonawane 16-ABA-3161-2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Anticipatory Bail Application No.3161 of 2022 With Interim Application No.223 of 2023 in Anticipatory Bail Application No.3161 of 2022 Safia Akhtar Shaikh ... Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent. With Anticipatory Bail Application No.3248 of 2022 With Interim Application No.222 of 2023 in Anticipatory Bail Application No.3248 of 2022 Mustafa Ismail Dandekar ••• Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ••• Respondent. Mr Nilesh Navale for the applicant in ABA 3161 of 2022. Mr Shyam Dewani i/by Chirag Chanani for applicant in ABA No.324/2022. Mr Sandesh Patil i/by Chintan Patil for the intervenor in ABA No.3161 of 2022. Mr Sandesh Patil i/by Divya Pawar for intervenor in ABA No.3248/2022. Mr Yogesh Dabake, APP (through VC) for the State. Page No. 1 of 2 5 August 2024. Chitra Sonawane 16-ABA-3161-2022.doc Coram : R.N.Laddha, J. Date : 5 August 2024. P.C. : At the request of learned APP, stand over to 6 August 2024. Interim relief granted earlier, shall continue to operate till the next date. [ R. N. Laddha,J. ] Page No. 2 of 2 5 August 2024.

Order - Status 24: sg 931.aba3161-22.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3161 OF 2022 Safia Akhtar Shaikh ... Applicant v/s. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.223 OF 2023 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3161 OF 2022 Akshay Chandrakant Patil ... Applicant In the matter between Safia Akhtar Shaikh ... Applicant v/s. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3248 OF 2022 Mustafa Ismail Dandekar ... Applicant v/s. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.222 OF 2023 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3248 OF 2022 Akshay Chandrakant Patil ... Applicant In the matter between Mustafa Ismail Dandekar ... Applicant Page 1 of 3 7 August 2024 v/s. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent …. Mr Nilesh Navale, for the Applicant in ABA/3161/2022. Mr Shyam Dewani, i/b. Chirag Chanani, for the Applicant in ABA/3248/2022 (through VC). Mr Sandesh Patil, i/b. Mr Chintan Shah, for the Intervenor in ABA/3161/2022. Mr Sandesh Patil, i/b. Ms Divya Pawar, for the Intervenor in ABA/3248/2022. Mr Yogesh Y Dabake, APP, for Respondent State (through VC). …. Coram : R.N. Laddha, J. Date : 7 August 2024 P.C. : Interim Application No.223 of 2023 in Anticipatory Bail Application No.3161 of 2022 And Interim Application No.222 of 2023 in Anticipatory Bail Application No.3248 of 2022 . Heard. For the reasons stated in the applications and no objection from other side, the interim applications are allowed. Interim applications stand disposed of accordingly. Page 2 of 3 7 August 2024 . By consent, stand over to 2 September 2024. Interim relief granted earlier shall continue to operate till the next date. (R.N. Laddha, J.) Page 3 of 3 7 August 2024

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1527 OF 2022 Parag Shankar Ramugade .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Sanjeev Kadam with Mr.Raju M. Yamgar for the Applicant. Mr.S.V.Gavand, A.P.P. for the State/Respondent. ... … CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 10th JUNE, 2022 P.C:- In the wake of the accusations faced by the applicant pursuant to an order being passed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., it would be imperative that the complainant is impleaded as party respondent. The learned counsel for the applicant states that he shall implead the complainant as party respondent. Amendment shall be carried out forthwith. The learned A.P.P. shall inform the complainant about his impleadment in the proceedings. Re-notify to 15/06/2022. ( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.) M.M.Salgaonkar

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1527 OF 2022 Parag Shankar Ramugade APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Adv. Sanjeev Kadam a/w Adv. Raju Yamgar For Applicant Shri S. V. Gawand, APP for State CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE BHARATI DANGRE J DATE : 15th June, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 23/06/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1527 OF 2022 Parag Shankar Ramugade .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Sanjeev Kadam with Mr.Raju M. Yamgar for the Applicant. Ms.Veera Shinde, A.P.P. for the State/Respondent. Mr.D.T.Dhonde, API attached to Kopri Police Station, present. ... … CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 23rd JUNE, 2022 P.C:- At the request of the learned counsel Mr.Kadam, re-notify to 24/06/2022. The matter shall be listed on the supplementary board. ( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.) M.M.Salgaonkar

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SALGAONKAR M M Digitally signed by SALGAONKAR M M Date: 2022.06.27 18:29:58 +0530 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1527 OF 2022 Parag Shankar Ramugade .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Sanjeev Kadam with Mr.Raju M. Yamgar for the Applicant. Ms.Veera Shinde, A.P.P. for the State/Respondent. … The complainant is present in the Court. Mr.D.T.Dhonde, API attached to Kopri Police Station, for the Intervenor. ... CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 24th JUNE, 2022 P.C:- The learned counsel Mr.Kadam, on instructions, states that the applicant has an offer to be made to the complainant, who is present in the Court. He states that if such offer is acceptable by the complainant, the matter can be settled. In view of the above, list the application on 30/06/2022. ( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1527 OF 2022 Parag Shankar Ramugade ] ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ] ... Respondent Mr. Sanjiv P. Kadam i/b Raju Yamgar and Mr. Rajesh Kakad for the applicant. … … Ms. Veera Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 30TH JUNE, 2022. P.C.:- In presence of the complainant, the consent terms are tendered on record by learned counsel Mr. Sanjeev Kadam, appearing for the applicant. By the consent terms, the applicant has agreed to transfer rights, title, share and interest in Shop No.FF13 admeasuring 390 sq. ft. and Flat No.FF3 admeasuring 730 sq.ft. situated at Survey No.173/17/1, Emerald Tower, Agashivnagar Nagar, Near Emerson Company, Karad Dhebewadi Main Road, Malkapur, Karad, District Satara, in favour of the complainant, as full and final settlement of disputes between the parties. The applicant has also undertaken that the stamp duty, registration charges and other incidental expenses shall be borne by the applicant. It records that on account of full and final settlement, the parties would take appropriate steps for quashing of the FIR and the complainant has accorded his unconditional consent for quashing the subject FIR. The consent terms are taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. Since Mr. Kadam makes a specific statement that the full and final settlement shall be effected between the parties within four weeks from today. Accepting the said statement as undertaking, list on 28/07/2022. In the wake of the understanding arrived at, between the parties, no coercive steps shall be initiated against the applicant. [SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.]

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1527 OF 2022 …. Mr Parag Shankar Ramugade Applicant v/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents Mr Raju Yamgar, for the Applicant. Mr Amit A Palkar, APP, for Respondent State. None for the Intervenor. PSI Ulhas Ganpat Surve, Kopri Police Station, present. …. Coram : R.N. Laddha, J. Date : 22 July 2024 P.C. : . None present for the informant/respondent no.2. At the joint request of learned Counsel for the applicant and learned APP, stand over to 26 July 2024. Ad-interim relief granted earlier shall continue to operate till the next date. (R.N. Laddha, J.) Page 1 of 1 _______________________________________________ 22 July 2024

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1527 of 2022 Parag Shankar Ramugade ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Raju M. Yamgar a/w. Bharti Lokhande, for the Applicant. Mr. Amit A. Palkar, APP for the Respondent – State. None for the Complainant / Respondent No.2. Coram: R. N. Laddha, J. Date: 26 July 2024 P.C. . None present for the informant / respondent No.2. The learned counsel for the applicant also seeks an adjournment and states that the parties have amicably settled their disputes. Stand over to 29 July 2024. Interim protection granted earlier, if any, shall continue to operate till the next date. R. N. Laddha, J. Page 1 of 1

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1527 OF 2022 Mr Parag Shankar Ramugade Applicant v/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents Ms Bharti Lokhande, i/b. Raju Yamgar, for the Applicant. Mr Yogesh Y Dabake, APP, for Respondent State. …. Coram : R.N. Laddha, J. Date : 29 July 2024 P.C. : . The learned Counsel for the applicant, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw this application. Leave granted as prayed for. The application stands dismissed as withdrawn. (R.N. Laddha, J.) Page 1 of 1 _______________________________________________ 29 July 2024 Digitally signed by SMITA JOHNSON GONSALVES 14:17:00 +0530 SMITA JOHNSON GONSALVES

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8846 OF 2024 …. …. Lakshmi Daulu Patil And Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Keshav Borhade i/b RK & Co. for the Petitioners. Smt.V.R. Raje, A.G.P. for the Respondent – State. CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J. DATE : 1ST JULY 2024 P.C . : Mr.Borhade, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 15.3.2024, (page 23) ignores the position that permission was required to be sought for running a fare price shop by a salesman under the Government Resolution dated 5.1.1993, which still holds the field. It is further contended that illegalities, as found by the Additional Commissioner (Supply) in his order date 22.8.2022 to the effect that the respondent no.5 has himself admitted having issued duplicate receipts, and so also the report of the Enquiry Officer VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2024.07.01 20:06:04 +0530 that 13 out of 14 persons, from whom enquiry was made, have stated that they have received less grains, for which they have filed complaints on 20.4.2024, all have been ignored by respondent no.2 while passing the impugned order dated 15.3.2024, considering which, issue notice for final disposal, returnable on 29.7.2024. The learned AGP waives notice for respondent nos.1 to 4. The petitioners to serve respondent no.5 by all modes permissible in law by the returnable date. By way of ad-interim order, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 15.3.2024 is stayed till the next date. (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8846 OF 2024 Lakshmi Daulu Patil And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVINASH G. GHAROTE J DATE : 29th July, 2024 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 21/08/2024 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8846 OF 2024 Lakshmi Daulu Patil and Ors. … Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents None for the Petitioner. Smt. V.R.Raje, AGP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Sachin K. Hande, Advocate for Respondent No.5. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 21 st AUGUST, 2024. P.C. : None for the petitioner. By way of indulgence, stand over to 29 th August, 2024. It is clarified that if the petition is not heard for the reason attributable to the petitioners, the interim relief shall be vacated. Digitally signed SONALI SATISH KILAJE SATISH KILAJE Date: 2024.08.22 12:06:47 +0700 Interim relief, if any granted earlier to continue till the next date. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL/CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 29 th AUGUST 2024 P.C. . The following matters on the main board cannot be taken up due to paucity of time. The matters are adjourned to the dates respectively shown against them. Sr.Nos. Case Nos. Next Date 42 WP/8846/2024 (C) 27/09/2024 43 WP/9210/2024 (C) 27/09/2024 44 WP/9253/2024 (C) 27/09/2024 45 WP/9254/2024 (C) 27/09/2024 46 WP/9706/2024 (C) WITH WP/P9649/2024 WITH WP/9623/2024 27/09/2024 47 WP/10057/2024 (C) 27/09/2024 48 WP/10149/2024 (C) 27/09/2024 49 WP/11503/2024 (C) 27/09/2024 50 WP/1236/2010 (C) WITH WP/2582/2015 27/09/2024 51 WP/1205/2018 (C) WITH WP/3404/2013 WITH WP/9726/2017 27/09/2024 52 WP/4188/2019 (CR) 27/09/2024 53 WP/6384/2019 (CR) 07/10/2024 54 WP/1336/2022 (C) 07/10/2024 55 WP/10652/2022 (C) 07/10/2024 56 APL/620/2024 (CR) 07/10/2024 57 WP/5125/2024 (C) 07/10/2024 59 WP/7352/2024 (C) WITH WP/7532/2024 07/10/2024 60 WP/8400/2024 (C) 07/10/2024 61 WP/9197/2024 (C) 07/10/2024 62 WP/9222/2024 (C) 07/10/2024 63 WP/9250/2024 (C) 07/10/2024 64 WP/9751/2024 (C) 08/10/2024 65 WP/9859/2024 (C) 08/10/2024 66 WP/10282/2024 (C) 08/10/2024 67 WP/11171/2024 (C) 08/10/2024 68 IA/17344/2022 (C) WITH IA/17343/2022 IN WP/2165/1986 08/10/2024 If any ad-interim or interim relief granted in any of the above said matters, is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective assigned dates. R.M. JOSHI, J.

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8846 OF 2024 Lakshmi Daulu Patil and ors. …Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Principal ... Respondents Secretary and ors. Mr. Keshav Borhade along with Ms. Rajshree Borhade Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. V. R. Raje, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Ms. Poonam Pal i/b. Mr. Sachin Hande, Advocate for Respondent No.5. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 27th SEPTEMBER, 2024. P.C. : Stand over to 21st October 2024. Interim relief, granted earlier, to continue till the next date. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : 21st October, 2024. P. C. : On account of paucity of time, following matters on Daily Board stand adjourned as follows: stand adjourned as follows: Next Date Sr. Nos. Next Date Sr. Nos.45 to 70 (except Sr. No.64, 65) 14th January 2025. Sr. Nos.71 to 100 Sr. Nos.101 to 120 (except Sr. 15th January 2025. 7th February 2025. No.106) 10 th February 2025. If in any of the above matters, ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If ad-interim relief or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8846 OF 2024 Lakshmi Daulu Patil and ors. Petitioners VS. State of Maharashtra and ors. Respondents Mr. Keshav Borhade, for the Petitioner. Ms.N.M. Mehra, AGP for State-Respondent. Mr. Sachin Hande, for Respondent No.5. CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 21, 2025 P.C.: 1. By consent of the Petitioners and Respondent No.5, the impugned order is set aside. Revision Application before the Hon'ble Minister which is at page 167 of this paper-book may be decided on its own merits afresh and in accordance with law. Revision Application be decided expeditiously and preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of this order is placed for consideration before the Hon'ble Minister. 2. The Writ Petition is disposed of. 3. It is made clear that I have not made any observations on merits on rival contentions of the parties. All contentions of the parties are kept open. 4. The parties to appear before the Hon'ble Minister on 03/02/2025 at 2:30 p.m. when further schedule of the revision may be fixed. (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 5: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1258 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant V/s. Bhimrao Mahadeo Kadam ...Respondent …. Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the appellant/State. Mr. Hemant Sharma i/b Mr. Ganesh Gole, advocate for the respondent. …. CORAM : N.B. SURYAWANSHI, J. DATE : 30TH AUGUST, 2019 P.C. : Learned advocate Mr. Hemant Sharma h/f advocate for the respondent prays for an adjournment. Stand over to 27/09/2019. ( N.B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPEAL NO. 1258 OF 2002 The State Of Maharashtra ....Appellant V/S Bhimarao Mahadeo Kadam ....Respondent Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, A.P.P.For Appellant Mr.Ganesh Gole ( For Res. No.1) For Respondent CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM, J DATE : 14th October, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 16/10/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPEAL NO. 1258 OF 2002 The State Of Maharashtra ....Appellant V/S Bhimarao Mahadeo Kadam ....Respondent CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM, J DATE : 16th October, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 17/10/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPEAL NO. 1258 OF 2002 The State Of Maharashtra ....Appellant V/S Bhimarao Mahadeo Kadam ....Respondent CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM, J DATE : 17th October, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 18/10/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.1258 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra …..Appellant Versus Bhimrao Mahadeo Kadam …..Respondent None for Appellant. None for Respondent. CORAM : SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATE : 29th NOVEMBER, 2019 P. C. : Neither the parties nor their counsel are present, stand over after four weeks. [ BHARATI DANGRE, J. ]

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1258 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra )….Appellant V/s. Bhimrao Mahadeo Kadam ) Age about 32 years, R/o. Gude, Tal.Panhala ) Dist. Kolhapur )....Respondent ---- Ms.Pallavi Dabholkar APP for appellant/State. Mr.Dheeraj Patil a/w Ms.Tanuja Parashave i/by Mr.Drupad S.Patil for respondent no.1. CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 14.1.2020 ORAL JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal impugning an order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge & Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolhapur acquitting accused of offences punishable under sections 7 (Offence relating to public servant being bribed), section 13(1)(d) (Criminal misconduct by a public servant), read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (the said Act). The facts in brief are that accused was working as a candidate in record section in the office of Tahasildar, Panhala, Kolhapur. I am told, the candidate's role in the office of Tahasildar is to work as an Assistant to the Record Keeper. One Sambhaji Rajaram Jadhav-complainant (PW-1) had applied for certified copies of mutation entries on 22.9.1997. Photocopying charge etc. was actually coming to Rs.36.45/- but when complainant approached accused on 25.9.1997, accused demanded a sum of Rs.100/- which included Rs.36.45/- as copying fee and the balance as bribe/illegal gratification. Accused therefore, filed complaint to Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) for taking necessary action. After obtaining sanction, a trap was decided to be laid. Two panchas were called and necessary instructions and formalities were completed. The raiding party thereafter went to the office of accused on 29.9.1997 and caught accused red handed with the marked currency note of Rs.100/-. The post trap panchanama was also drawn and the crime was registered against accused. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was lodged, charges were framed, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The stand of accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was that when complainant had come to apply for certified copy, he did not have money with him so accused helped him by borrowing Rs.100/- from somebody else and on 29.9.1997 complainant came to return that money of Rs.100/-. I have to be candid that I find this stand rather strange because it is not the case of accused that complainant was known to him very well or is a close friend. At the same time, I am not discarding that stand as imaginary because one never knows there could be some good people who help others. To drive home the charge, prosecution relied on evidence of 5 witnesses viz. Sambhaji Rajaram Jadhav (PW-1), Complainant ; Dastagir Babasaheb Mulla (PW-2) who was the Stenographer in the office of Tahasildar ; Jaywant Vasantrao Kothawale (PW-3) Clerk/Record keeper in the office of Tahasildar ; Shivajirao Satyappa Kambale (PW-4) Nayab Tahasildar at Panhala ; and Vinayak Shivram Tilekar (PW-5), Police Inspector in ACB. The trial Court after considering the evidence and the documents that were filed, by giving a very detailed order and judgment dated 9.8.2002 acquitted accused and this order of acquittal is impugned in this appeal. For the sake of brevity, I am not going into all those details which the trial Court has gone into, because I feel certain facts as stated by Complainant and the prosecution witnesses itself are enough to dismiss this appeal. PW-1 who is complainant, in his examination-in-chief states that accused went through the contents of his application and asked him to attend the office on 25.9.1997 and when complainant went back on 25.9.1997 and asked accused, accused informed complainant (PW-1) that he will have to deposit a sum of Rs.36.45/- by way of legal charges against 3 mutation entries. PW-1 also says that accused asked him to deposit Rs.100/- so that the balance amount after paying Rs.36.45/- to the Government will be his bribe which is a condition precedent to issue the mutation extracts. As per PW-1 he did not have that much money with him and accused asked complainant to attend the office again on 27.9.1997 with money. In his cross-examination PW-1 says that it is not correct to say that accused demanded sum of Rs.36.45/- by way of copying fees and the remaining amount by way of bribe. This itself goes to the root of the matter and this contradiction itself is enough to knock the matter down. PW-3 is a Record Keeper in the office of Tahasildar. In his cross-examination he says that he received all the papers from accused on 25.9.1997 and thereafter no work remained with accused after 25.9.1997. He also says that employee candidates/accused used to sit outside the record room. The employee candidates were not empowered by him to collect money or copying fees and the employee candidates used to direct clients to contact PW-3 for paying the fees. Therefore, PW-3 who is the prosecution witness says that accused was never empowered to collect any money and all the applicants are directed to him for paying the necessary fees. PW-4 who is Nayab Tahasildar says that copying candidates like accused are not paid by Government and they do not receive salary or remuneration from Government and he was also not a Government employee or Government servant. Therefore, the applicability of section 7 of the said Act itself is in question. Prosecution has not led any evidence to prove PW-4 wrong. Exh.14 is copy of the application made by complainant and Exh.15, 16 & 17 are the extract of mutation entries. PW-4 says that extract was ready on 25.9.1997 and all compliance was done. He also says that he has endorsed papers and sent them to record section for delivering copies. PW-4 says that general record book is maintained by record keeper and record keeper used to deliver copies to applicant. PW-4 also endorsed what PW-3 says that it is the responsibility of record keeper to receive fees from applicant, issue receipt and receive amount. He says that Exh.15, 16 & 17 are the copies that were ready and prepared on 25.9.1997 under his signature. PW-4 also says it is not the responsibility of the employee candidate to receive fees, prepare copies and deliver the copies. If one looks at Exh.15, 16 & 17 it says the application was received on 22.9.1997 [ uDdy vtZ vkyk rkjh[k ], the copies were ready on 23.9.1997 [ uDdy r;kj rkjh[k ] and the copies were given on 25.9.1997 [ uDdy fnyh rkjh[k ]. Therefore, Exh.15, 16 & 17 state that those extracts were given to applicant on 25.9.1997. This means that on 22.9.1997 itself or latest by 25.9.1997 itself the photo copying charges have been paid, because Exh.15,16 & 17 also indicate the photo copying charges paid. It is therefore, difficult to believe the case of the prosecution that on 25.9.1997, complainant did not have money with him and accused asked him to bring money on 29.9.1997. The onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused committed the offence as prescribed under Section 13(1) (d) read with section 13(d) of the said Act. Prosecution has failed in discharging this burden. There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption in favour of accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. For acquitting accused, the Trial Court observed that prosecution had failed to prove its case. In the circumstances, in my view, the opinion of the trial Court cannot be held to be illegal or improper or contrary to law. The order of acquittal, in my view, cannot be interfered with. Appeal dismissed. (K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1258 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra )….Appellant V/s. Bhimrao Mahadeo Kadam ) Age about 32 years, R/o. Gude, Tal.Panhala ) Dist. Kolhapur )....Respondent ---- Ms.Pallavi Dabholkar APP for appellant/State. Mr.Dheeraj Patil a/w Ms.Tanuja Parashave i/by Mr.Drupad S.Patil for respondent no.1. CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 14.1.2020 ORAL JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal impugning an order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge & Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolhapur acquitting accused of offences punishable under sections 7 (Offence relating to public servant being bribed), section 13(1)(d) (Criminal misconduct by a public servant), read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (the said Act). The facts in brief are that accused was working as a candidate in record section in the office of Tahasildar, Panhala, Kolhapur. I am told, the candidate's role in the office of Tahasildar is to work as an Assistant to the Record Keeper. One Sambhaji Rajaram Jadhav-complainant (PW-1) had applied for certified copies of mutation entries on 22.9.1997. Photocopying charge etc. was actually coming to Rs.36.45/- but when complainant approached accused on 25.9.1997, accused demanded a sum of Rs.100/- which included Rs.36.45/- as copying fee and the balance as bribe/illegal gratification. Accused therefore, filed complaint to Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) for taking necessary action. After obtaining sanction, a trap was decided to be laid. Two panchas were called and necessary instructions and formalities were completed. The raiding party thereafter went to the office of accused on 29.9.1997 and caught accused red handed with the marked currency note of Rs.100/-. The post trap panchanama was also drawn and the crime was registered against accused. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was lodged, charges were framed, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The stand of accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was that when complainant had come to apply for certified copy, he did not have money with him so accused helped him by borrowing Rs.100/- from somebody else and on 29.9.1997 complainant came to return that money of Rs.100/-. I have to be candid that I find this stand rather strange because it is not the case of accused that complainant was known to him very well or is a close friend. At the same time, I am not discarding that stand as imaginary because one never knows there could be some good people who help others. To drive home the charge, prosecution relied on evidence of 5 witnesses viz. Sambhaji Rajaram Jadhav (PW-1), Complainant ; Dastagir Babasaheb Mulla (PW-2) who was the Stenographer in the office of Tahasildar ; Jaywant Vasantrao Kothawale (PW-3) Clerk/Record keeper in the office of Tahasildar ; Shivajirao Satyappa Kambale (PW-4) Nayab Tahasildar at Panhala ; and Vinayak Shivram Tilekar (PW-5), Police Inspector in ACB. The trial Court after considering the evidence and the documents that were filed, by giving a very detailed order and judgment dated 9.8.2002 acquitted accused and this order of acquittal is impugned in this appeal. For the sake of brevity, I am not going into all those details which the trial Court has gone into, because I feel certain facts as stated by Complainant and the prosecution witnesses itself are enough to dismiss this appeal. PW-1 who is complainant, in his examination-in-chief states that accused went through the contents of his application and asked him to attend the office on 25.9.1997 and when complainant went back on 25.9.1997 and asked accused, accused informed complainant (PW-1) that he will have to deposit a sum of Rs.36.45/- by way of legal charges against 3 mutation entries. PW-1 also says that accused asked him to deposit Rs.100/- so that the balance amount after paying Rs.36.45/- to the Government will be his bribe which is a condition precedent to issue the mutation extracts. As per PW-1 he did not have that much money with him and accused asked complainant to attend the office again on 27.9.1997 with money. In his cross-examination PW-1 says that it is not correct to say that accused demanded sum of Rs.36.45/- by way of copying fees and the remaining amount by way of bribe. This itself goes to the root of the matter and this contradiction itself is enough to knock the matter down. PW-3 is a Record Keeper in the office of Tahasildar. In his cross-examination he says that he received all the papers from accused on 25.9.1997 and thereafter no work remained with accused after 25.9.1997. He also says that employee candidates/accused used to sit outside the record room. The employee candidates were not empowered by him to collect money or copying fees and the employee candidates used to direct clients to contact PW-3 for paying the fees. Therefore, PW-3 who is the prosecution witness says that accused was never empowered to collect any money and all the applicants are directed to him for paying the necessary fees. PW-4 who is Nayab Tahasildar says that copying candidates like accused are not paid by Government and they do not receive salary or remuneration from Government and he was also not a Government employee or Government servant. Therefore, the applicability of section 7 of the said Act itself is in question. Prosecution has not led any evidence to prove PW-4 wrong. Exh.14 is copy of the application made by complainant and Exh.15, 16 & 17 are the extract of mutation entries. PW-4 says that extract was ready on 25.9.1997 and all compliance was done. He also says that he has endorsed papers and sent them to record section for delivering copies. PW-4 says that general record book is maintained by record keeper and record keeper used to deliver copies to applicant. PW-4 also endorsed what PW-3 says that it is the responsibility of record keeper to receive fees from applicant, issue receipt and receive amount. He says that Exh.15, 16 & 17 are the copies that were ready and prepared on 25.9.1997 under his signature. PW-4 also says it is not the responsibility of the employee candidate to receive fees, prepare copies and deliver the copies. If one looks at Exh.15, 16 & 17 it says the application was received on 22.9.1997 [ uDdy vtZ vkyk rkjh[k ], the copies were ready on 23.9.1997 [ uDdy r;kj rkjh[k ] and the copies were given on 25.9.1997 [ uDdy fnyh rkjh[k ]. Therefore, Exh.15, 16 & 17 state that those extracts were given to applicant on 25.9.1997. This means that on 22.9.1997 itself or latest by 25.9.1997 itself the photo copying charges have been paid, because Exh.15,16 & 17 also indicate the photo copying charges paid. It is therefore, difficult to believe the case of the prosecution that on 25.9.1997, complainant did not have money with him and accused asked him to bring money on 29.9.1997. The onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused committed the offence as prescribed under Section 13(1) (d) read with section 13(d) of the said Act. Prosecution has failed in discharging this burden. There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption in favour of accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. For acquitting accused, the Trial Court observed that prosecution had failed to prove its case. In the circumstances, in my view, the opinion of the trial Court cannot be held to be illegal or improper or contrary to law. The order of acquittal, in my view, cannot be interfered with. Appeal dismissed. (K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1258 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra )….Appellant V/s. Bhimrao Mahadeo Kadam )....Respondent CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 21.1.2020 P C. . :- 1 Suo motu called for speaking to the minutes. 2 In the order dated 14th January 2020, after paragraph 13, add the following as paragraph 14 : The State Government/Appropriate Authority shall pay over to respondent, within a period of 30 days from today, all pensionary or other benefits/dues stalled, in view of pendency of this appeal. No authority shall demand certified copy for reimbursing the benefits/dues as directed above. All to act on authenticated copy of this order. Certified copy expedited. 3 Rest of the order remains unaltered. Original order to be corrected accordingly. (K.R.SHRIRAM,J)