Dismissed

Sayyad Zakir Hussain v. Sau Reshma Mumtaz Zakir Sayyad and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Sept 2010WP/659/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposes of a writ petition challenging an order excluding the petitioner's brother from the courtroom during witness examination. The court held that the trial court is master of its own process and suppressed no substantial ground for interfering with the discretionary order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as petitioner failed to show substantial ground for entertaining the challenge against the trial court's discretionary order.

Sayyad Zakir Hussain Vs Sau Reshma Mumtaz Zakir… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 659 OF 2010

Sayyad Zakir Hussain

..PETITIONER

-VERSUS-

Sau. Reshma Mumtaz Zakir Sayyad and another

¶8

..RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. S.V. Mundhe, Advocate for Petitioner

¶10

(CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 15th September, 2010.

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

1. The petitioner challenges the order rendered by the

¶13

learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) whereby direction was given to the effect that brother of the present petitioner be not allowed to remain present in the Court Hall during the course of recording examination of the original applicant i.e. Reshma Mumtaz. The learned Magistrate allowed the application.

¶14

The learned Advocate would submit that such prohibitory direction should not have been given because the Court is the Public place where the litigants are allowed to attend the matter unless there is a specific reason to prohibit the entry in view of the provisions of Section 327 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶15

¶16

The matter does not relate only to the provision under Section 327 of the Criminal Procedure Code but also is required to be considered in view of the Standing practice and the provisions of the Criminal Manual. The relevant provision contained in ChapterVI para no.13(1) of the Criminal Manual deals with the practice. The instructions contained in para no.13(1) would make it clear that if the Court thinks it fit, it may order at any stage of inquiring into, or trial of, any particular case that the public generally, or any particular person shall not have access to, or be or remain in, the Court room or Building. In other words, ordinarily, the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court is Master of the judicial business to be transacted in the Court. Ordinarily, he shall not prohibit any one but if required and in the interest of justice, he may order any one to be away from the Court Hall while recording of evidence of witnesses. No substantial ground appears for entertaining the Writ Petition which is filed against the discretionary order.

¶17

gas/criwp659.10

¶18

( V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE

Sayyad Zakir Hussain v. Sau Reshma Mumtaz Zakir Sayyad and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayyad Zakir Hussain v. Sau Reshma Mumtaz Zakir Sayyad 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

Shahaji Abasaheb Diwate Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Nitin Baliram Kamble Vs the State of Mah

Uttaml Maroti Savant and Ors. Vs the State of Maharshtra and Anr.

The State of Mah Vs Ram Babruwan Chendke and Ors.

Navnath Nagari Sahakari Patsansthal Maryadit Parola Vs Dilip Bhila Patil

Chhotu Mohammadali Lakhani Vs Sayyeed Habibuddin Sayeed Buruhanoddin