The Criminal Appeal was not proceeded with as the appellant's counsel prayed for its withdrawal due to an objection to maintainability based on Section 374(3)(a) CrPC, citing Heeralal Ramlal Parmar.
Appeal disposed of as withdrawn; liberty given to file before Sessions Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2007
RAMCHANDRA INGLE PRESENTLY AT CENTRAL JAIL AGUADA ... Appellant Versus S T A T E THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ... Respondent
Mr. Arun Bras De Sa, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. W. Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
Coram:D. B. BHOSALE, J.
Date:29th November, 2007
P.C.
Ms. Coutinho, learned Public Prosecutor, at the outset, raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal in view of the provisions of Section 374(3)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She also drew my attention to a judgment of this Court in the case of Heeralal Ramlal Parmar and etc., vs. State of Maharashtra, 1998 Cr.L.J. 574 . In view of the objection, Mr. Bras de Sa, learned Counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of this appeal, with liberty to the appellant to file an appeal before the Sessions Court, South Goa, Margao. The appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed.
D. B. BHOSALE, J.
ssm.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Heeralal Ramlal Parmar and etc., vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶8
Heeralal Ramlal Parmar and etc., vs. State of Maharashtra, 1998 Cr.L.J. 574
RAMCHANDRA INGLE PRESENTLY AT CENTRAL JAIL AGUADA
S T A T E THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
D. B. BHOSSALE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
