Dineshkumar Motilal Jaipuria vs State of Maharashtra through PSO Gondia City Advocate - Chandwani M. S. — 16/2022
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 15th April 2026.
Cri.Appeal - Criminal Appeal
CNR: MHGO010007372022
Filing Number
386/2022
Filing Date
23-05-2022
Registration No
16/2022
Registration Date
24-05-2022
Court
District and Session Court , Gondia
Judge
41-District Judge-2 Addl. Sessions Judge Gondia
Decision Date
15th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dineshkumar Motilal Jaipuria
Adv. Popat N.S.
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra through PSO Gondia City Advocate - Chandwani M. S.
Hearing History
Judge: 41-District Judge-2 Addl. Sessions Judge Gondia
Disposed
Judgment
Judgment
Citation
Citation
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 10-04-2026 | Judgment |
| 08-04-2026 | Judgment |
| 02-04-2026 | Citation |
| 30-03-2026 | Citation |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The Additional Sessions Judge at Gondia partially allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the conviction of Dineshkumar Motilal Jaipuria, finding that serious errors and irregularities in the framing of charges caused a failure of justice. Key defects included: incorrect location of the incident in the charge, wrongly framing charges for the 15-04-2017 incident (which involved only two accused, insufficient to constitute an unlawful assembly of five persons), and omissions regarding the specific violent acts alleged. The court remanded the case for retrial with proper charge-framing by the trial court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Additional Sessions Judge at Gondia partially allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the conviction of Dineshkumar Motilal Jaipuria, finding that serious errors and irregularities in the framing of charges caused a failure of justice. Key defects included: incorrect location of the incident in the charge, wrongly framing charges for the 15-04-2017 incident (which involved only two accused, insufficient to constitute an unlawful assembly of five persons), and omissions regarding the specific violent acts alleged. The court remanded the case for retrial with proper charge-framing by the trial court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts