Partly allowed

Raju Kishanchand Ramani v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Aug 2006APPLN/3000/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal before the Bombay High Court regarding the petitioner's rights to cross-examine the accused. The court fixed a trial date, clarified limits on delay tactics, and directed the trial judge to decide the complaint expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to appear for cross-examination on 29.8.2006 as per Sessions Court order; Trial Judge restricted from granting further time; Complaint to be decided by 10.11.2006.

Raju Kishanchand Ramani Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3000 OF 2006

Mr. Raju K. Ramani

...Appellant.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents.

¶8

Mr. R.K. Ramani, in person.

¶9

Mr. Rajesh More, APP, for the State.

¶10

CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : AUGUST 21, 2006.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Heard Petitioner appearing in person.

¶13

2.	After	arg	uing	the P	etition	for	som	e t	ime	on
merits,	the	Petit	ioner	appearing		in	person	stat	es	that
now	the	next	date	is fixed	in	the	Trial	Court	is	29th
August	2006.	H	e st	ates that	on	the	next	date,	he	will
appear	b	efore	the	lealrned	Trial	Judge	a	nd w	ill	offer
himself	f	or cr	oss	examination	by	the	Ad	vocate	for	the
accused	in	term	s of	the ord	er	passed	by	the	S	essions
Court	on	23rd	June	2006.	He	states	th	at com	plaint	be

¶14

ordered to be disposed of expeditiously as prayed in

¶15

this application.

¶16

-2-

¶17

3.	I have	consider	ed	the	submissio	ns.	It is	not	in
dispute	that o	n 2	6th	June	2006,	the	order	of	the
Sessions	Court	was	not	act	ed upo	n.	It app	ears	that
Sessions	Court	has	pe	rmitted	fu	rther	cross	exami	nation
of the	Petitioner	only	by	way	of	indul	gence.	Based	on
the said	order,	the	accu	sed	cannot	dela	y the	trial	any

¶18

further. Hence, Petition is disposed of by passing the following order :-

¶19

(a) The Petitioner will remain present before the Trial Court on 29th August 2006 and will offer himself

¶20

for cross-examination in terms of the order passed by

¶21

the Sessions Court on 23rd June 2006.

¶22

(b) It is clarified that the learned Trial Judge will

¶23

not grant any further time to the accused for further

¶24

cross-examination of the Petitioner.

¶25

¶26

complaint as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 10th November 2006.

¶27

(d) Subject to what is stated above, the application

¶28

is rejected.

¶29

-3-

¶30

(e) The applicant will serve ordinary copy of this

¶31

order to the accused as well as to the Advocate appearing for the accused.

¶32

(f) The parties as well as the Trial Court will act on

¶33

an authenticated copy of this order.

¶34

JUDGE

Raju Kishanchand Ramani v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Kishanchand Ramani v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mohan Arjun Yadav and Anr.

Ezaz Ahammed Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri Dharmanna Kashiraya Karajgi Vs Smt.Shivlinguva W/O.Chanabasappa Mayanale and Ors.

Shivaji Babu Chavan Vs Pandurang Babu Cahvan and Anr.

Sanjay Madhav Athavale Vs Gupta Enterprises and Ors.

Shantilal R. Shah Vs Hemlata Rassiklal Shah and Ors.