High Court Criminal Appeal declared infructuous due to appellant filing a duplicate appeal through private counsel and explicitly withdrawing the jail-appeal.
Criminal Appeal declared infructuous and disposed of.
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.
3.Apeal 523_2016.doc
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 523 OF 2016
Shivanand @ Shivaji Fakirappa Adakar Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
... Appellant
... Respondent
Mr. Prosper D'Souza, Advocate appointed for the appellant. Mr. H.J. Dedia, APP for the Respondent – State.
CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATE: AUGUST 25, 2016
P.C.:
The appellant has preferred this appeal through jail against his conviction and sentence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 83 of 2012. The said Appeal was admitted by order dated 28th July, 2016 and it is pending for final hearing. However, during the pendency of this Appeal, the appellant has filed another Appeal, i.e., Criminal Appeal (St.) No. 550 of 2016 against the very same judgment and order. This Appeal is filed by Advocate Mr. Sandeep Y. Ghaste. The appellant has chosen to appoint an advocate to file his appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Ghaste states that he has taken instructions from the appellant about the appeal filed through jail and the appellant stated that he does not wish to pursue the appeal filed through jail and he wished to pursue only Criminal Appeal (St.) No. 550 of 2015 wherein he has appointed a private advocate who has filed the Appeal.
1 / 2
3.Apeal 523_2016.doc
(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)
2 / 2
Shivanand @ Shivaji Fakirappa Adakar
The State of Maharashtra
V.K. Tahilramani
Mridula Bhatkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
