A criminal writ petition was heard and disposed of as the parties mutually agreed to expedite the trial court proceedings, and the petitioner withdrew the press for the writ.
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 WRIT PETITION NO. 85 OF 2009
PARSHURAM YADAV ... Petitioner Versus STATE (THROUGH THE PERNEM POLICE STATION) ... Respondent
Mr. S.C. Kushwaha, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor with Mr. Kapil Kerkar, Advocate for the respondent.
Coram:U. D. SALVI, J.
Date:20th November, 2009
P.C.
Heard.
would prefer to wait till the disposal of the trial below if the trial is expedited. State has no problem with the expeditious disposal of the criminal case no.51/2009 in which the vehicle in question is involved.
U. D. SALVI, J.
vn
Parshuram Yadav
State
U. D. Salvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
