Revision petition by the State challenging a Sessions Judge order was disposed of as infructuous because the underlying special case of 2014 had already been concluded.
Revision petition 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.
36-REVN-40-2016.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.40 OF 2016
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...APPLICANT
V/s.
GANGARAM VITTAL POKHARKAR )...RESPONDENT
Mr.S.K.Shinde, Public Prosecutor, a/w. Mr.S.V.Gavand, APP for the Applicant – State.
Mr.A.Majid H.D., Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 3rd FEBRUARY 2017
P.C. :
1 By this revision petition, the State is challenging the
order dated 1st December 2015 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Khed-Rajgurunagar, in Special (Atrocity) Case No.2 of 2014, thereby rejecting the application of the State for recalling witness Vitthal Somaji Pardhi.
avk 1/2
36-REVN-40-2016.doc
2 Heard the learned APP as well as the learned advocate appearing for the respondent / accused. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent / accused has placed on record photocopy of the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge in Special (Atrocity) Case No.2 of 2014 on 10th June 2016. The learned APP has also not disputed the fact that the special case is now disposed of.
in the revision petition and the same is accordingly disposed of as infructuous.
avk 2/2
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
GANGARAM VITTAL POKHARKAR
A. M. BADAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
