A criminal revision application by an accused against an order rejecting discharge is disposed of because charges were framed by the trial court and no ad-interim order survives.
Application disposed with no order as charges were framed.
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.
22.revn.180.16.doc
sbw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.180 OF 2016
Mrs. Meenal Mangesh Gandhi vs.
… Applicant
Union of India … Respondent
Mr. Girish Kulkarni i/b. M. Kulkarni for the Applicant. Ms. Rebecca Gonsalves for Respondent no.1. Mr. A. D. Khamkhedkar, APP, for the Respondent-State.
P.C.
This application is filed by applicant-accused no.3 who is aggrieved by an order dated 12th January, 2016 rejecting an application for discharge. Ms. Gonsalves, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 states that in the trial Court charges have already framed on 12th January, 2017. In the circumstances, nothing survives in the present application. There is no adinterim order or stay. In view thereof application is disposed of.
1/1
Mrs. Meenal Mangesh Gandhi
Union of India
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
