Bombay HC: How to appreciate prosecution evidence when investigating officer has failed to secure independent witnesses even though incident occurred in public place?

As such there are major contradictions in the evidence of these five witnesses. What is more surprising is that the Investigating Officer did not get any independent witness in the reservation hall, where hundreds of persons are always present during reservation hours. The argument of the Applicant that a false case has been concocted against him and he has been intentionally removed from the railway platform, where he was running a food stall, appears to be probable. In my opinion, the Applicant has been able to probabilise his case. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses appears to be wholly doubtful. The learned trial court and the appellate court in fact could not have accepted such a contrary evidence of constables and head constable belonging to the same department. {Para 5}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Revision Application No. 149 of 2005

Decided On: 21.08.2014

George Cyriac Maruthukunnel Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: M.L. Tahaliyani, J.

Citation: 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 897, MANU/MH/2748/2014

Print Page

Supreme Court: Non-Examination Of 'Best Witness' Not Fatal In MACT Cases

 Similarly, the issue of non-examination of the pillion rider, Rajulal Khateek, would not be fatal to the case of the Appellants. The approach in examining the evidence in accident claim cases is not to find fault with non examination of some "best" eye witness in the case but to analyse the evidence already on record to ascertain whether that is sufficient to answer the matters in issue on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. This Court, in Dulcina Fernandes (supra), faced a similar situation where the evidence of claimant's eyewitness was discarded by the Tribunal and the Respondent was acquitted in the criminal case concerning the accident. This Court, however, took the view that the material on record was prima facie sufficient to establish that the Respondent was negligent. In the present case, therefore, the Tribunal was right in accepting the claim of the Appellants even without the deposition of the pillion rider, Rajulal Khateek, since the other evidence on record was good enough to prima facie establish the manner in which the accident had occurred and the identity of the parties involved in the accident. {Para 31}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1665 of 2019.

Decided On: 14.02.2019

Sunita and Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi, JJ.

Author: A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

Citation: 2019 INSC 200,2019 SCC ONLINE SC 195, MANU/SC/0204/2019

Print Page

Bombay HC: How to appreciate evidence in motor accident case when police report was lodged against unknown vehicle?

 The burden of proof is on the claimants. Same may be discharged on preponderance of probabilities. The insurer may lead independent evidence in disproof of the claim or it may point out that the evidence relied on is inherently improbable and the Tribunal, therefore, ought not to have acted on it. {Para 14}

15. The Tribunal, in the present case, has simply relied on the factum of filing of charge sheet against the tractor driver. Admittedly, the report of the accident was lodged against unknown vehicle. It is only after three weeks a person comes forward claiming to have had witnessed the accident. He recalled of the accident only on having seen the hoarding depicting the picture of the deceased - Sandip. According to the alleged eye witness, some person had gathered on the spot of accident. Had it really been so, involvement of the offending tractor could have come to light immediately, i.e., on the same day of the accident. Same suggests that no person had witnessed the accident. The conduct of the alleged eye witness - Atul Gade in coming forward after three weeks of the accident, is unnatural and does not stand to reason. He was residing at a nearby village. On having seen such an accident, he left the place without intimating the same to anyone else. Realising to have had witnessed the accident only on having seen the hoarding and picture of the deceased, leads this Court to observe that this person is a got up witness only with a view to earn the compensation. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to rely on the evidence of this witness.

16. There is no other evidence in proof of involvement of the tractor in question. The Tribunal ought not to have allowed the claim petition merely relying on such police papers namely, charge-sheet, seen of accident panchnama and post mortem notes. This Court has, therefore, every reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. In view of this Court, the evidence fell short to make out case even on preponderance of probabilities.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 1342 of 2021

Decided On: 31.01.2022

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Tilottam and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.G. Avachat, J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/1303/2022.

Print Page

Bombay HC: How to appreciate evidence in motor accident claim petition when false case is put forth by claimant?

As regards the fact of accident is concerned, the initial burden is always on the claimant/ claimants to prove the same, which includes not only the involvement of the vehicle but also the manner in which the accident had taken place, as pleaded in the petition. All those authorities, which have been relied by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, have reiterated the basic principle as aforesaid i.e. the burden is on the claimants to prove the accident including the involvement of the vehicle/vehicles. In First Appeal No. 2742 of 2015 (supra) note has been taken of the decision of Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 32 of 2013 decided on 11.07.2013 (Goa Bench), wherein it was held that mere production of police papers and exhibiting those documents does not dispense the proof of contents of those documents. It was also held that merely on the basis of certified copies of First Information Report, Spot Panchnama and other documents the claimants cannot prove their case. Therefore, it is now required to be seen, as to whether the evidence adduced in this case fulfills the criteria.

12. The First Information Report has been admittedly lodged belatedly. At this stage itself, note can be taken regarding the ratio in Ravi v/s. Badrinarayan and others reporting in MANU/SC/0133/2011 : (2011) 4 SCC 693 that delay in lodging the FIR, cannot be taken as a main ground for rejecting the claim petition. Here not only the point of delay has been canvassed but it is coupled with non-involvement and collusion. Therefore, facts and evidence is required to be scanned taking into consideration these aspects. Informant Balaji is the brother of deceased and in the First Information Report, which has been lodged after 25 days of accident (on 21.06.2011), number of Tata Magic has been given and then it is stated that when he came to know about the accident, he went to hospital, where Dhanaji was admitted. He had come to know that two persons from his village viz. Laxman Uttam Kamble and Mahesh Rangnath Deshmukh had admitted Dhanaji to hospital regarding details of accident. It appears that Dhanaji was unconscious on that day but on the next day i.e. on 28.05.2011 he expired at about 1.00 p.m.. It also appears from the contents of the First Information Report that the police were calling Balaji, since the date of post mortem and inquest panchnama, to lodge First Information Report but Balaji had not gone to Police Station. He has tried to explain that, since he was in grief and his mental condition was not proper, inspite of messages given he could not lodge the report. The claimants have not examined Balaji for the reasons best known to them. No doubt, he was not eye witness but then he could have thrown light as to why he had lodged the First Information Report belatedly and no other person could have lodged the report at any earlier point of time. Interesting point to be noted is that the inquest panchnama was executed on 28.05.2011 when Balaji was present. The inquest panchnama Exh.32 only makes a statement that motorcycle driven by Dhanaji was dashed by Tata Magic. Why First Information Report was not taken down at that point itself is a question. It will not be out of place to mention another interesting fact that claimants have examined CW 2 Dipak Lokhande, whose name is not appearing in inquest panchnama or in the spot panchnama or even in First Information Report, but then he say that he had seen the accident. So also, he says that the accident was witnessed by Laxman Kamble and Mahesh Deshmukh from his village. Now said Mahesh Deshmukh is, in fact, panch to the inquest panchnama. Therefore, if he was an eye witness to the incident, why he did not inform the said fact and ask the police to incorporate the vehicle number of Tata Magic in the inquest panchnama itself, is also a question. Conveniently the claimants have kept him out of witness box, for the reasons best known to them. Therefore, mere mention of Tata Magic in inquest panchnama will not be sufficient to hold that it was the Tata Magic belonging to respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2 on the date of the accident.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 606 of 2019 and Civil Application No. 3025 of 2019 in FA/606/2019

Decided On: 24.09.2019

Shriram Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Vanita and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/2654/2019.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether claimant in motor accident claim petition must strictly prove that accident was caused by particular vehicle?

 It is true that the Tribunal had looked into the oral and documentary evidence including the FIR, final report and such other documents prepared by the police in connection with the accident in question. The Tribunal had also taken note of the fact that based on the final report, the driver of the offending truck was tried and found guilty for rash and negligent driving. The High Court took note of such aspects and found no illegality in the procedure adopted by the Tribunal and consequently dismissed the appeal. In the contextual situation it is relevant to refer to a decision of this Court in Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi and Anr.   MANU/SC/0759/2023 : 2023:INSC:621, this Court held thus: {Para 8}

12....A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. To the same effect is the observation made by this Court in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz,   MANU/SC/1028/2013 : 2013:INSC:695 : (2013) 10 SCC 646 which has referred to the aforesaid judgment in Bimla Devi.

9. Thus, there can be no dispute with respect to the position that the question regarding negligence which is essential for passing an award in a motor vehicle accident claim should be considered based on the evidence available before the Tribunal. If the police records are available before the Tribunal, taking note of the purpose of the Act it cannot be said that looking into such documents for the aforesaid purpose is impermissible or inadmissible.

10. It is also a fact that the Appellant had attributed that the Respondent claimants connived with police and fraudulently prepared the chargesheet. The contention is that the vehicle insured with the Appellant was not involved in the accident and the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligence on the part of the deceased. But the evidence on record would reveal that pursuant to the filing of the final report, cognizance was taken for rash and negligent driving which resulted in the death of Udayanath Sahoo.

11. In view of the aforementioned circumstances and taking note of the concurrent findings of the Tribunal and the High Court, we do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court. Resultantly, the appeal must fail and consequently it is dismissed.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2025.

Decided On: 02.01.2025

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajani Sahoo and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.

Author: C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 6, MANU/SC/0015/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether Motor accident claim tribunal can disbelieve evidence of a eye witness on the ground that police has not recorded his statement?

The courts below have recorded the finding of non-involvement of the car in the accident by disbelieving the eyewitness, PW-6 only on the ground that in the police investigation, he was not examined as an eyewitness. In our considered view, a witness who is otherwise found trustworthy cannot be disbelieved, in a motor accident case, only on the ground that the police have not recorded his statement during investigation. There is abundance of evidence pointing to the fact that the car was involved in the accident and the courts below have not considered the evidence in true perspective and have misguided themselves to record perverse finding regarding non-involvement of the car in the accident. In claim cases, arising out of motor accident, the court has to apply the principles of preponderance of probability and cannot apply the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence available in the present case tested on the principles of preponderance of probability can record only one finding that the car was involved in the accident, otherwise, the damage found to the car in the Mahazar (Annexure P-2) was not possible. The Mahazar clearly records that the front bumper right side of the car is broken, front right parking light is broken, the grill fitted above the front bumper is curved. With such damages to the front side of the body of the car, it is impossible to record a finding that the car was not involved in the accident. {Para 16}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 7881 of 2024.

Decided On: 17.10.2024

Sajeena Ikhbal and Ors. Vs. Mini Babu George and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.T. Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.

Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1120/2024,2024 INSC 787.

Print Page

What is the standard of proof for deciding motor accident claim petition?

 The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Anita Sharma Vs. New India Assurance Company, MANU/SC/0928/2020 : 2020:INSC:685 : (2021) 1 SCC 171, has held that nature of proceedings under Section 169 of Motor Vehicles Act are in the nature of summary proceedings and that strict principles of evidence and standard of proof like criminal trial are inapplicable. It is further held that the standard of proof on preponderance of probabilities would apply to such cases. The Hon'ble Apex Court expects form the Court to analyse the material placed on record to ascertain whether the claimant's version is more likely than not true. {Para 10}

11. No doubt, the initial burden is on claimants to prove the factum of occurrence of accident as well as negligence on the part of the driver of offending vehicle in order to make owner and insurer thereof liable for payment of compensation arising out of such accident. Here in this case, claimant No. 1 examined herself at Exhibit 23. She deposed about the accident and registration of First Information Report as well as filing of charge-sheet against the driver of Tavera jeep. Certified copies of First Information Report, Post Mortem notes (Exhibit 33), registration of vehicle bearing No. MH 26 V 4866 (Exhibit 36) and insurance policy (Exhibit 37) collectively are the part of record. In the cross-examination, no doubt, she admitted to have not witnessed occurrence of the accident however, there is nothing elicited in her cross-examination in order to create doubt about the document sought to be placed on record. Exhibition of these documents is not objected at stage of trial nor any doubt is created in respect of the same by effectively cross examining claimant No. 1. The owner has failed to cross-examine this witness. Whereas, on behalf of insurer, there is even no suggestion made to the witness that the driver of Tavera jeep was driving the vehicle by taking utmost care and the vehicle was not driven in excessive speed. Further, there is no suggestion to the effect that the accident has occurred due to mechanical fault or fault on the part of the other vehicle. Moreover, the genuineness thereof has not been challenged, except vague suggestion that by managing police, First Information Report is reported against driver of offending vehicle. The First Information Report is lodged by the police personnel at place far distant from the residence of the claimants. In such circumstances, there is no reason or justification to hold that it is registered at instance of claimants to seek compensation.

12. It is trite that claim petition is not to be tried as criminal proceeding wherein strict proof of the fact is required. In any enquiry for determination of compensation, claimants are expected to prove their case on preponderance of probabilities. First Information Report indicates that offence was registered against the driver of the offending jeep. There is nothing on record to indicate First Information Report being challenged by any one or quashment thereof is sought. In absence of any evidence to prove otherwise, the evidence on record is sufficient to hold that the accident has occurred due to negligence of the driver of offending jeep. The findings recorded by learned Tribunal with regard to the negligence therefore deserves no interference.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 4258 of 2017

Decided On: 09.01.2024

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pallavi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.M. Joshi, J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/0129/2024,2024:BHC-AUG:315.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Motor Accidents | 'No Negligence' Finding In Final Report Has No Bearing On Claim Petition As Standard Of Proof Is Different

In this context, we could refer to judgments of this Court in the case of N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal reported in MANU/SC/0321/1980 : AIR 1980 SC 1354, wherein the plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected. It was observed that culpable rashness Under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code is more drastic than negligence under the law of torts to create liability. Similarly, in MANU/SC/0577/2009 : (2009) 13 SCC 530, in the case of Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation ("Bimla Devi"), it was observed that in a claim petition filed Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal has to determine the amount of fair compensation to be granted in the event an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of a driver of a motor vehicle. A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. 

10. In that view of the matter, it is for the Appellant herein to establish negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry in the petition filed by him seeking compensation on account of death of his son in the said accident. Thus, the opinion in the final report would not have a bearing on the claim petition for the aforesaid reasons. This is because the Appellant herein is seeking compensation for the death of his son in the accident which occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry, causing the accident on the said date. It is further observed that in the claim petitions filed by the dependents, in respect of the other passengers in the car who died in the accident, they have to similarly establish the negligence in accordance with law.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1931 of 2023.

Decided On: 13.07.2023

Mathew Alexander  Vs. Mohammed Shafi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.V. Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0759/2023.

Author: B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Print Page

Whether strict principles of proof in criminal cases is applicable to motor accident claim petition?

It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal's role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1665 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 33757 of 2018)

Decided On: 14.02.2019

Sunita  Vs.  Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2019 SC 994

Print Page

How to prove second marriage in departmental enquiry?

The allegations against the present petitioner are that when his first wife was alive, he performed second marriage with Ranjana and reason for that his first wife Sandhya was issueless for so many years. The learned AGP initially relied on two documents i.e. agreement dated 2-9-2002 in the nature of leave-in-relationship between the petitioner and his second wife Ranajana and the copy of the family arrangement deed dated 22-6-2002 between the petitioner and his first wife Sandhya. On perusal of the same, it appears that the petitioner made a contract with Ranjana as his first wife was issueless. On perusal of the contents of the leave-in-relationship contract, it appears that it was agreed between the petitioner and Ranjana to reside as a husband and wife. If these contents of the leave-in agreement are read coupled with the evidence of the priest namely Shri Dyneshwar Joshi and other relevant document, it appears that those documents are sufficient to prove that the petitioner has contracted the second marriage with Ranjana in spite of subsisting of his first marriage with Sandhya.

6. Standard of proof in the departmental enquiries are on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities and to prove such marriage, standard of proof is not required as high as required to prove the offence punishable under section 494 of Indian Penal Code, nor the marriage of the petitioner with Ranjana is independently in dispute, therefore, no high degree proof is required to prove such marriage in the departmental enquiry.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

W.P. No. 313 of 2011

Decided On: 12.04.2018

 Ashok Ramakant Choudhari Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

T.V. Nalawade and K.L. Wadane, JJ.

Citation: 2018(5) MHLJ 725

Print Page

Whether charge of adultery in Divorce proceeding is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt?

To prove the charge of adultery the standard of proof required in a criminal case cannot be applied for the proceedings under the Act. Person alleging adultery is only required to prove the allegations by preponderance of probabilities and the degree of probability depends on the gravity of the offence. It is well established that application for divorce is a civil proceeding and analogies of criminal law cannot be applied to it. It is equally true that the petition for divorce on the charges of adultery cannot be allowed merely on suspicion and doubts expressed by the party approaching the Court. The view of proving the matrimonial offence beyond reasonable doubt has undergone a sea change and in the modified form the petitioner is only required to prove his case by preponderance of probabilities and the degree of probability depends upon the gravity of the offence. A Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Lalit Lazarus v. Smt. Lavina Lazarus, MANU/MP/0016/1979 : AIR1979MP70 considered this aspect of the matter in detail and held that (Paras 6 and 7)

'The next question to be considered is whether the petitioner has proved that the respondent No. 1 is guilty of adultery. Previously the view was that the matrimonial offences have to be proved by petitioner beyond reasonable doubt but recently the view has been modified and it has been held that petitioner is only required to prove his case by preponderance of probabilities and the degree of probability depends on the gravity of the offence Rayden on Divorce in Vol. 1 at page 193 has observed "But a suit for divorce is a civil and not a criminal proceeding and the analogies and precedents of criminal law have no authority in the Courts administering divorces; they are civil Tribunals. It is wrong, therefore, to apply an analogy of criminal law and to say that adultery must be proved with the same strictness as is required in a criminal case. As far as the standard of proof is concerned, adultery, like any other fact on which irretrievable breakdown of marriage is concerned, may be proved by a preponderance of probability, and although it has been said that in proportion as the offence is grave, so ought the proof to be clear, and that even in these days there is a stigma in adultery, nevertheless views on adultery have changed and it no longer generally entails the serious social consequences that in some former limes resulted from its discovery."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

O.S.A. No. 11 of 1996

Decided On: 26.06.1997

 M.R.G.L.J. Vailsher Vs. Smt. Ramola Vailshery and others

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.P. Sethi, C.J. and Hari Nath Tilhari, JJ.

 Citation : AIR 1997 Kant 341

Print Page

Whether standard of proof in departmental enquiry is by preponderance of probabilities?

 It is interesting to note that the learned Single Judge went to the extent of observing that the concept of preponderance of probabilities is alien to domestic enquiries. On the contrary, it is well known that the standard of proof that must be employed in domestic enquiries is in fact that of the preponderance of probabilities. In Union of India Vs. Sardar Bahadur[3], this Court held that a disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial and thus, the standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. 

Supreme Court of India

G.M.(Operations) S.B.I. & Anr vs R.Periyasamy on 10 December, 2014

Author: S A Bobde

Bench: J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde

Citation;(2015) 3 SCC 101

Print Page

When charge of misbehaviour with female employees is not proved?

The charges 

levelled   against   the   petitioner   were   that   he   misbehaved   with   the   female 
employees working in the department and the behaviour of the petitioner with 
the female employees was improper. 
After hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties and 
examining the record, particularly, the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, I 
find that the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer is as vague as it could be 
and it cannot be said that there is any finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer 
which brings home the alleged guilt of the petitioner.  There is no justification on 
the record as to why the complaint about the alleged incidents was made after 

the period of 7 or 8 years.   The Enquiry Officer has found that the statements 
given by some of the witnesses examined during the enquiry are not supported 
by  the   statements   of the   other  witnesses  or  there  are  contradictions.       I  am 
conscious that the charges against the delinquent in the departmental enquiry 
are required to be considered on the basis of the theory of preponderance of 
probabilities and it is not necessary that the parameters applicable in criminal 
trial are required to be applied.   However, the employee cannot be deprived of 
his   legal   right   of   continuing   in   the   employment   on   the   basis   of   motivated 
complaints without examining the truthfulness of the allegations made against 
the employee.  Moreover, the Enquiry Officer is required to give definite finding 
after considering the material on the record that the charges levelled against the 
delinquent are proved.    In the present case, the Enquiry Officer has not been 
able to bring home the alleged guilt for which the petitioner was charged and 
therefore, he has recorded that charges 1 and 2 are partly proved against the 
petitioner.  

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

Dhanraj s/o Nankuprasad Gupta V  Public Works Department, 

CORAM  :  Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE  :     12.11.2014
Citation;2015(2) MHLJ 351

Print Page