The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad dismissed a criminal revision application as infructuous since it was admitted in 2003 without a stay, rendering the present challenge superfluous.
Criminal Revision Application dismissed as infructuous.
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.
G.A.Ghule [P.A.]
cra 79.03.sxw
1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
Criminal Revision Application No.79 Of 2003.
The State of Maharashtra.
Through Suresh Pundlik Aher, Police Sub Inspector, Dhule Taluka Police Station, Dhule.
Versus.
Kantilal s/o Wana Garde. R/o.: Ambode, Tal. Dhule.
Appearance =>
Mr. V.P. Kadam, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Maharashtra.
None present for the Respondent.
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 23rd FEBRUARY, 2015.
Per Court :-
Heard Mr. V.P. Kadam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. None present for the Respondent, though served.
[2] This Criminal Revision Application is filed against the judgment and order dated 25th September, 2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, [ Court No.7] Dhule in S.T.C.No.158 Of 1998 whereby, the learned Magistrate convicted the Respondent for the offences punishable under Section 85(1) of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and under Section 117 of the Bombay Police Act. However, instead of imposing any jail sentence, the learned Magistrate has exercised powers
2/2 cra 79.03.sxw
under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and directed that the Respondent – Accused shall execute a bond of good behaviour with surety of Rs.5000/for a period of three years. It was further directed that the the Respondent – Accused shall remain under the supervision of the District Probation Officer, Dhule or any other Probation Officer appointed by him in this behalf for a period of two years.
[3] This Criminal Revision Application was admitted on 6th June, 2003 however, there was no stay granted by this court. In that view of the matter, Mr. V.P. Kadam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has rightly submitted that this Criminal Revision Application has rendered infructuous. Hence, present Criminal Revision Application is dismissed as infructuous. Rule discharged.
(V.M. DESHPANDE, J.)
The State of Maharashtra
Kantilal s/o Wana Garde
V.M. DESHPANDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
