Criminal Appeal disposed as infructuous because the appellants had already preferred the same appeal under a different number and were tagged parties in that earlier appeal.
Criminal Appeal disposed of 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.
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 900 OF 2009
Laxmibai Rudrappa Birajdar & Anr. .. Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
Appearances
Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary Advocate for the Appellants Smt. V.R. Bhonsale APP for the State
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 22, 2016.
P.C.:
1. This appeal has been preferred by appellant No. 1 i.e
original accused No. 11 - Laxmibai Rudrappa Birajdar and appellant No. 2 i.e original accused No. 12 - Gurawwa Gurunath Birajdar. The record shows that both these appellants had earlier preferred Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2005 along with some other accused against the very same
Judgment and Order. In Cri. Appeal No. 932 of 2005, Laxmibai is appellant No. 4 and Gurawwa is appellant No. 5.
Both these appeals have been tagged together. In this view
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 2
of the matter, this Criminal Appeal is disposed of as
infructuous.
[ SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
2 of 2
jfoanz vkacsjdj
Laxmibai Rudrappa Birajdar & Anr.
State of Maharashtra
V.K. Tahilramani
Anuja Prabhudesai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
