Disposed

Manjoor Ahemad Kureshi Fakir Mohammad v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC19 Nov 2013APPLN/961/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Application challenging the framing of charge, the Single Judge held that a statutory remedy of revision exists. The court declined to entertain the application but directed the Sessions Court to entertain a revision within one month, stayed proceedings, and condoned limitation.

What did the court decide?

Directed Sessions Court to entertain revision within one month without bar of limitation; proceedings stayed for one month.

Manjoor Ahemad Kureshi Fakir Mohammad Vs the State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

(1)

¶2

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

¶3

Criminal Application No. 961 of 2013

¶4

Manjoor Ahemad Kureshi s/o. Fakir Mohammad, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Service, As Head Master of Maulana Azad Junior College, Town Hall, Aurangabad, R/o. Plot No. 6/2, New S.T. Colony, Katkat Gave, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra, Through City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad.

¶6

Munawwar Ahemad s/o. Naim Ahemad, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. C/o. M.A. Majid, 40, New S.T. Colony, Katkat Gate, Aurangabad, At present at Patni Apartment, Block "Jeevan", near Neharu Bhavan, Aurangabad. .. Respondents. .......................

¶7

Mr. S.S. Kazi, Advocate, for the applicant.

¶8

Mr. S.R. Palnitkar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent no.1.

¶9

Mr. N.V. Gaware, Advocate, for the respondent no.2.

¶10

(2)

¶11

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

¶12

DATE : 19TH NOVEMBER 2013

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶15

Though number of contentions have been raised, the basic challenge is to the framing of charge against the petitioner. The substance of all the contentions is that, there is no material in the charge sheet for framing a charge against the applicant, and that the order framing charge is not in accordance with law.

¶16

Against an order framing charge, a revision would be maintainable. Under these circumstances, it appears proper that the applicant should be asked to exhaust the statutory remedy of filing an application for revision, which is available to him.

¶17

When this aspect of the matter is discussed, the learned Counsel for the applicant submits that, in that event, appropriate orders be passed by this Court to ensure that the application for revision, if filed by the applicant, is entertained by the Court of Sessions, without raising the question of bar of limitation, and that, since the applicant was protected by the interim orders passed by this Court from time to time, the applicant be further protected for the limited period that would be required for

¶18

(3)

¶19

approaching the Court of Sessions.

¶20

Since the remedy of filing a revision application before the Court of Sessions is available to the applicant, I decline to entertain the present application invoking the inherent powers of this Court.

¶21

In the circumstances, it is directed that, in the event of the applicant filing an application for revision, within a period of one month from today, the Court of Sessions shall entertain the same and deal with the same on merits, without raising the question of bar of limitation and, if necessary, by passing a formal order condoning the delay. The Court of Sessions shall dispose of the application for revision, if any, filed by the applicant, in accordance with the aforesaid observations, expeditiously and in any case, within a period of two months from the date on which it is made.

¶22

The proceedings before the Magistrate shall remain stayed for a period of one month from today.

¶23

The Criminal Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶24

( ABHAY M. THIPSAY )

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

bgp/cria961

Manjoor Ahemad Kureshi Fakir Mohammad v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjoor Ahemad Kureshi Fakir Mohammad v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anuja Sachin Vaidya and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhimrao Limbada Kadam and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sheshrao@Vijay Bhikaji Salve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Pooja Mahesh Vaidya and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

M/S Videocon Narmada Electronics Ltd. Vs M/S Top Line Shoes Limited

Ramchandra Devidasrao(R.D) Deshmukh Vs Raosaheb Bapusaheb Jamkar and Ors.