Partly allowed

Kishore Harilal Joshi v. the Union of India and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Dec 2005WP/2336/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Appellate Side dismissed a Criminal Writ Petition seeking expedited disposal of a criminal case under Section 309 Cr.P.C., finding no proof of deliberate delay. It remanded another petition for placement before a single judge under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; subsequent petition placed before learned single judge.

Kishore Harilal Joshi Vs the Union of India and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2336 OF 2005

¶4

 ----------------------------------------------------

¶5

 Office Notes, Office Court’s or Judge’s orders
 Memoranda of Coram
 appearances, Court’s orders
 or directions and
 Registrar’s orders

¶6

 ---------------------------------------------------

¶7

 Shri Ayaz Khan for the petitioner

¶8

 Shri H.V.Mehta Advocate for
 Respondent No.1/Union of India.

¶9

 Mrs.U.V.Kejriwal, APP for
 Respondent/State.

¶10

Coram : R.M.S.Khandeparkar &
 R.S.Mohite,JJ

¶11

 Date : 19.12.2005.

¶12

PC

¶13

 . Heard.

¶14

 2. Merely because provision

¶15

 under Section 309 of Cr.P.C.

¶16

 requires speedy disposal of the
 matter after framing of the
 charge, there is nothing placed
 on record to justify a special
 treatment to be given to the
 petitioner’s case when there are
 number of other cases pending

¶17

 : 2 :

¶18

 for disposal before the Court

¶19

 below. The disposal of the

¶20

 cases has to be done based on
 the decision taken by the
 concerned Judge for appropriate
 disposal of the matters alloted
 to each Judge. There is nothing
 on record to disclose that there
 is deliberate attempt on the
 part of the concerned Court to
 delay the matter. In the
 circumstances, there is no
 justification for giving any
 direction as such to expedite
 the matter in the petitioner’s
 case. Hence, petition is
 rejected.

¶21

 3. As regards the Criminal Writ
 Petition No.2893/2005 is
 concerned, the same be filed in
 terms of Article-227 of the
 Constitution of India. It will

¶22

 have to be placed before the
 learned single Judge.

¶23

(R.M.S.Khandeparkar,J)

¶24

 : 3 :

¶25

 (R.S.Mohite,J)

Kishore Harilal Joshi v. the Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishore Harilal Joshi v. the Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Hanumant Dhoot Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Faruq Ismail Kalyani and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd. Ubaid @ Tarique Rashid Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Basavraj @ Basavannappa Parmeshwar Bangargi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tha State of Maharashtra Vs Suresh @ Satyavan Atmaram Tembulkar

Firoz Ahmed Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.