Disposed

Umesh Sampatrao Wadekar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secty. and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Feb 2013WP/30/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the inordinate delay of over 22 years in Regular Criminal Case No. 18/1990 pending against the petitioner. Following the report of the District Sessions Judge, the Court directed the Judicial Magistrate to dispose of the case expeditiously and secure the petitioner's presence for trial.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Warud to dispose of Regular Criminal Case No.18/1990 expeditiously and secure the petitioner's presence.

Umesh Sampatrao Wadekar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1/2

¶2

2502cwp30.13.odt

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 30 OF 2013

¶5

(Umesh Sampatrao Wadekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra & another)

¶6

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶7

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶8

Mrs. Priya Zoting, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner. Mr. R. S. Nayak, A.P.P. for the respondent-State.

¶9

CORAM : A. P. LAVANDE AND A. B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED : 25 FEBRUARY, 2013.

¶10

The grievance made by the petitioner in this petition is that Regular Criminal Case No. 18/1990 pending against him and other accused under various offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Warud is not being taken up.

¶11

Report from the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Amravati was called as to why the said case was pending for more than 22 years. The report submitted by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Amravati discloses that the present petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and presently he is undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life. Insofar as Regular

¶12

2/2

¶13

2502cwp30.13.odt

¶14

Criminal Case No. 18/1990 pending before the J.M.F.C., Warud is concerned, there were initially 14 accused and the trial was separated in respect of some of the accused since they were not available for the trial. The report further discloses that charge has been framed against the petitioner on 29/01/2013 and the matter is now fixed for recording the evidence on 26/02/2013.

¶15

In view of the above, we direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Warud to dispose of Regular Criminal Case No.18/1990, expeditiously. The respondent-State shall secure the presence of the petitioner for trial and shall cooperate for early disposal of the said criminal case.

¶16

With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands dispose of.

¶17

We quantify the fees of the appointed Counsel at Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand only).

¶18

JUDGE JUDGE

¶19

wwl

Umesh Sampatrao Wadekar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secty. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Sampatrao Wadekar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secty. and Anr.

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

Fulsing Narsing Chauhan Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secty. and Anr.

Raju Shyamlal Dubey Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Shri Bandu Totiram Kukde Vs Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur and Anr.

Jitendrasingh Prakashsingh Tarwale and Others Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Saharkherda Tq and Distt Buldhana and Another

Ajay S/O Sahebrao Thakre Vs the State of Mah.Thr.P.S.O.Narkhed, Nagpur

Rajendra Tanbaji Satai Vs the State of Mah, Thru Pso