Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Dattu @ Ditya Ladkya Valvi and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Feb 2012REVN/585/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Revision Application challenged an order deferring the reliance on an unpronounced judgment because accused persons were absent for sentence hearing. The court noted the judgment had serious lacunae due to the defect in pronouncement.

What did the court decide?

Revision application dismissed against order dated 10/8/2010; accused directed to appear at Palghar Sessions Court.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dattu @ Ditya Ladkya… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2012)

-: 1 :-

revn - 585/10

srp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION APPL. NO. 585 OF 2011

¶6

The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Versus Dattu @ Ditya Ladkya Valvi and others. ..Respondents.

¶7

Mr. D.P.Adsule, APP for the Applicant-State. Mr.Prakash Naik for R-1, 2 & 4.

¶8

Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : February 14, 2012 .

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

Heard Mr. Adsule, learned APP for the Applicant –

¶11

State and Mr. Naik for respondent nos. 1, 2 & 4. The respondents–accused were charged for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148 and 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and were tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Palghar.

¶12

The evidence of both, the prosecution and accused, was over. Thereafter statements of the accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 were also recorded. Then, counsel for the prosecution and the accused advanced their respective arguments. Learned Sessions Judge thereafter prepared judgment. However, judgment could not be pronounced as

¶13

-: 2 :-

¶14

revn - 585/10

¶15

accused persons remained to be heard on the point of sentence as they were absent. In the meanwhile, concerned Sessions Judge was transferred from Palghar.

¶16

In above circumstances, application came to be made by the accused [Exhibit-76] requesting the Court not to act upon the judgment at Exhibit-70 prepared by the earlier Sessions Judge. This application was allowed by the order dated 10/8/2010. This order is challenged by the present revision.

¶17

The prosecution has filed reply to the application at Exhibit-76 filed by the accused. In this reply, prosecution has admitted that the accused were not heard on the point of sentence as they remained absent and therefore judgment could not be pronounced. This position is also admitted in the present revision application.

¶18

In these circumstances, the judgment which was prepared by the earlier Additional Sessions Judge suffers from serious lacunae. It cannot be termed as judgment. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing the impugned

¶19

-: 3 :-

¶20

revn - 585/10

¶21

order has relied upon the Apex Court decision in Surendra Singh and Ors vs. State of UP [AIR-1954 SC 194]. After hearing learned APP I do not find any error in the impugned order so as to enable me to interfere with the same in my revisional jurisdiction. In the light of above, revision application is dismissed.

¶22

However, the Respondents – accused are directed to remain present in the Sessions Court at Palghar at the time

¶23

of hearing on the case.

¶24

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

The State of Maharashtra v. Dattu @ Ditya Ladkya Valvi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Dattu @ Ditya Ladkya Valvi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Stri Shakti Kendra and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors. and Vira Travels and Logistics Pvt. Ltd., - Applicants

National Textile Corporation Ltd. ( Western Region). Vs Ramchandra Ballaya Samal.

Himanshu Kumar Sarkar Vs Reliance Infrastructure Limited through Managing Director and Ors.

Sadanand Rajaram Yedwadkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mansoorali D. Shivani and Ors. Vs Gulam Ganus Ibrahim Shaikh and Anr.

Naresh Kumar Munjal Vs M/S. Global Trade Finance Limited and Anr.