Public Interest Litigation seeking reinvestigation of a case where the accused was acquitted was disposed of by directing the State to file a reply in the pending Criminal Appeal, holding that reliefs would be agitated therein.
State directed to file reply in pending Criminal Appeal; PIL disposed of; hearing of criminal appeal expedited.
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.
1/3
PIL 63 of 2007
Vat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 63 OF 2007
Prashant Vyankatrao Hiray ….Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent
Mr. Anilkumar Patil for the Petitioner Mr. Vishal Thadani -AGP for Respondent -State
CORAM : V. M. KANADE & Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.
DATE : NOVEMBER 22, 2016
P.C. :
2/3
PIL 63 of 2007
facts, which are relevant of the purpose of deciding the objection raised by the Petitioner, are as under:
3/3 PIL 63 of 2007
17th November, 2005, no such reply has been filed. The State Government is directed to file a reply in the criminal appeal which is pending in this Court.
Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J. V.M. KANADE, J.
Vaishali Tikam
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the PIL seeking reinvestigation should be heard along with the tagged Criminal Appeal.
Whether the relief claimed in the PIL survives independently of the criminal appeal.
Prashant Vyankatrao Hiray
The State of Maharashtra
V. M. Kanade
Nutan D. Sardeesai
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
