Single Judge convicted allowed a criminal application. The State challenged an interlocutory order, and the court condoned the delay, noting the previous maintenance issue by the Division Bench. Application allowed.
Application allowed; delay in approaching this court condoned.
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.
APPR 121.11.sxw
1
JPP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 121 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL REVN. APPLICATION (St.) NO. 147 OF 2011
The State of Maharashtra. V/s. Sajid @ Raju @ Babloo Bashir Ahmed Sayyed & Ors.
... Applicant.
... Respondents.
Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for the State.
CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.
DATED : 28th SEPTEMBER 2011.
P.C. :-
Heard learned APP. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 duly served, however, absent. The challenge to the order dated 28th April 2011 arising out of Special Case No.9 of 2006. on 22nd February 2011, the Division Bench has passed order in Criminal Appeal No.135 of 2011 moved by the State against Sajid @ Raju @ Babloo Bashir Ahmed Sayyed, directing that the Appeal is not maintainable against interlocutory orders and therefore, it was disposed of but with liberty to avail other remedies as per law. Considering the selection of wrong forum by the State, the delay occurred. The delay is condoned. Application allowed.
(K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)
2 APPR 121.11.sxw
The State of Maharashtra
Sajid @ Raju @ Babloo Bashir Ahmed Sayyed & Ors.
K.U. CHANDIWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
