The High Court addressed a criminal application seeking expedient fixing of a State appeal. The court noted backlogs with 2005 appeals and denied immediate priority, granting liberty to mention for hearing after three months.
Liberty to mention for early hearing after three months; grant of priority dismissed.
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.
appa313.13
krs
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.313 OF 2013 In
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.496 OF 2012
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.
Court’s or Judge’s orders
Mr.S.P.Kadam for the applicant. Ms V.S.Mhaispurkar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for State.
CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.
DATE : AUGUST 19, 2013.
P.C.:
Heard.
State appeal expeditiously. Mr.Kadam says
that the accused-respondent is retiring soon and may face rigorous consequences of the pending criminal appeal.
priority as sought cannot be extended.
appa313.13
krs
However, liberty to mention for early hearing after three months. Criminal Application no.313 of 2013 is disposed of.
(K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.)
2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to fix the State appeal expeditiously given the applicant's claim about the respondent's impending retirement
Whether to grant liberty to mention for early hearing after three months
How to handle priority over other appeals pending before the court
Applicant
State
K.U. CHANDIWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
