Dismissed

Raju Rukka Shetty and Anr. . v. the State of Maharashtra .

Bombay HC8 Jun 2006WP/1391/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal writ petition challenging the dismissal of a discharge application. The court rejected reliance on a superseded Supreme Court judgment and found no infringement of Article 21 due to trial delays attributable to a stay order, holding the trial court's dismissal correct.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Rule stands discharged.

Raju Rukka Shetty and Anr. . Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE

¶2

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1391 OF 2000

¶3

 1. Raju Rukka Shetty )
 Age : Adult, Occ. Service )

¶4

 2. Mrs.Shakuntala Raju Shetty )
 Age : Adult, Occ. Household )
 Both R/o Flat No.303, 3rd floor )
 Ramyan, Anand Vihar Housing )
 Society, Khar(West),Bombay-400 052)..Petitioners

¶5

 V/s.

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra )..Respondents.

¶7

 ----

¶8

 Mr.K.S.Patil for the petitioners.

¶9

 Mr.J.C.Satpute for CBI.

¶10

 Mr.K.V.Saste APP for the State.

¶11

 ----

¶12

Coram : R.S.Mohite,J

¶13

 Date : 8.6.2006.

¶14

 Judgment :-

¶15

 1. By this petition the petitioners impugned the order
 dated 10.8.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge,
 Gr. Bombay in Misc. Application No.466/99 @ Special
 Case No.28/88 in R.c.No.83/86. By the said application
 the 2 petitioners have sought discharge in a case under
 Section 120-B of IPC read with 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) of
 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. In the discharge
 application reliance was placed upon the judgment of
 the Apex Court in the case of Raj Deo Sharma V/s.
State of Bihar decided on 22.9.1999. It was contended

¶16

 : 2 :

¶17

 that the period of 2 years have been completed from the

¶18

 date of recording the plea of the accused on the
 charges framed and the prosecution has not examined any
 witness. The Sessions Court after going through the
 roznama, dismissed the application holding that there
 was no inordinate delay on the part of the State and
 that it was in the interest of justice, State ought to
 be given fair opportunity to lead evidence against the
 accused. It is now well known that the judgment relied
 upon for the purpose of obtaining discharge is no
 longer subsists. It was then sought to be contended
 that long delay of trial violated Article-21. I am not
 impressed by this argument. Stay was obtained in the
 year 2000. Subsequently, petition was dismissed for
 default and was restored with a partial stay. The
 trial Court has given cogent reasons as to why State
 cannot be blamed for the delay of the trial. In the
 circumstances, there is no substance in the petition.
 Petition is therefore, dismissed. Rule stands
 discharged.

¶19

(R.S.Mohite,J)

Raju Rukka Shetty and Anr. . v. the State of Maharashtra .

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Rukka Shetty and Anr. . v. the State of Maharashtra .

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

Ravish Rafiq Kharbe Vs the S.E.M. Bombay and Another.

Hasmukhalal v. Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bena Dinesh Kanabar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Javahar Nanchand Shah Vs Dattu Gundu Parit

Javahar Nanchand Shah Vs Dattu Gundu Parit

Santosh Vilas Pandalage Vs the State of Maharashtra