Application for early hearing of an appeal by the State challenging acquittal of respondents for offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was rejected because several jail applications are pending before this Court.
Application for early hearing rejected and dismissed.
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.
sr.11.appa.253.2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.253 OF 2018 IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.339 OF 2009
Popar Bhivaji Katare ... Applicant /respondent V/s. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Mr.Sumit Kate i/b. Mr. U.P. Warunjikar for the applicant. Mr.Prashant Jadhav, APP for the respondent/State.
CORAM : A.M.BADAR J.
DATED : 27th FEBRUARY 2018.
P.C. :
1/2
Vina k
sr.11.appa.253.2018
(A.M.BADAR J.)
2/2
Vina k
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application for early hearing of an appeal by the State challenging an acquittal can be permitted when several jail applications by the appellants are pending before this Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hussain & Anr. Vs Union of IndiaReferred¶17
Hussain & anr. Vs. Union of India 2017 (5) SCC 702 · Who else cites this
Popar Bhivaji Katare
State of Maharashtra
A.M. Badar J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
