Quashed

Sadanand Rajaram Yedwadkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC14 Feb 2012WP/262/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, through a single judge, quashed and set aside the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon, which dismissed a revision. The court held that the judge failed to decide an arguable legal point raised during the hearing, rendering the order unsustainable without deciding the issue on merits. The charge framing order was also quas

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing the revision and the subsequent charge framing order are quashed and set aside. The Sessions Judge is directed to decide the petitioners' revision on merits after giving

Sadanand Rajaram Yedwadkar and Ors. Vs the… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

-: 1 :-

wp - 262/12

srp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 262 OF 2012

¶6

Sadanand Rajaram Yedvadkar & Ors. ..Petitioners. Versus State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent.

¶7

Mr. Amit Desai, Senior Advocate with Ms. M.D’souza i/b A.S.Dayal & Associates for the petitioners. Mr. D.P.Adsule, APP for the State.

¶8

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

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

Heard Mr. Desai, learned senior counsel for the

¶11

petitioners and Mr. Adsule, learned APP for the respondent – State.

¶12

The Petitioners, who are the original accused, by filing present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are challenging the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon passed on 20^th September 2011 thereby dismissing the petitioners’ revision. By the said revision, the petitioners had challenged the committal order passed by learned JMFC, Roha under section 209 of the Code

¶13

-: 2 :-

¶14

wp - 262/12

¶15

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short “Cr.P.C.].

¶16

On the basis of information given by one Shiram Baliram Pol, PSI of Nagothane Police Station, FIR No.41/08 was registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 304-A and 285 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short “IPC”]. The police thereafter investigated the case and submitted report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. in the Magistrate’s Court at Roha and case was numbered as Summary Case No.73 of 2009. Learned APP thereafter preferred application at Exhibit 87. The prosecutor alleged that charge-sheet itself discloses the commission of offence punishable under section 304-II of IPC and therefore request was made to commit the case to the Sessions Court. Learned Magistrate after hearing parties concerned, recorded the subjective satisfaction that the material on record reveals the commission of offence punishable under section 304-II of IPC. Therefore, in view of the provisions of section 209 of Cr.P.C, committed the case to the Sessions Court at Mangaon. This order was challenged by the petitioners by filing Revision Application No.11 of 2010 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon. This revision came to be dismissed, as stated

¶17

-: 3 :-

¶18

wp - 262/12

¶19

above, by the order impugned in this petition.

¶20

The reasons for dismissal of revision application are contained in paragraph no.9 of the impugned order/judgment, which read thus. :

¶21

“9. A debatable point was canvassed before me by Ld.PP Shri.P.S.Patil that once the power under section 209 Cr.P.C is exercised by the Magistrate who has committed the trial to the court of Sessions, Sessions Court has no power to send back the proceeding to the lower Court without deciding the same on merit.”

¶22

The above observations make it clear that learned Sessions Judge rejected the petitioners’ revision application on the ground that debatable point was raised by learned APP, namely, that once Magistrate exercises powers under section 209 of Cr.P.C, the Sessions Court has no power to send back the proceedings to the lower Court. Interestingly, the learned Sessions Judge did not answer this debatable point. In my view, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have decided the application on merit. Learned Sessions Judge after rejecting the petitioner’s revision also framed charge by the order dated 11^th October 2011. Perusal of the entire order does not

¶23

-: 4 :-

¶24

wp - 262/12

¶25

disclose any reason as to why the petitioners’ revision is dismissed. Learned Sessions Judge has only observed that the point which is raised by learned APP is arguable one. If that is so, the petitioner’s revision ought not to have been dismissed without deciding that point/issue. On this sole ground, I am of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained and same is therefore quashed and set aside. As a corollary, the order framing charge will also not survive and same is also quashed and set aside. Learned Sessions Judge is directed to decide the petitioners’ revision on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to both sides.

¶26

Needless to mention that the petitioners’ revision will be decided independently on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.

¶27

Writ Petition stands disposed of in above stated

¶28

terms.

¶29

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

Sadanand Rajaram Yedwadkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadanand Rajaram Yedwadkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

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

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.

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

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

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