Application for early hearing of a criminal appeal challenging an acquittal was rejected. The court noted it is hearing appeals with appellants serving over five years imprisonment by priority. As this case does not fall under that category, it cannot be taken up immediately.
Application for early hearing rejected.
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.
4-APPA- 358-2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.358 OF 2018 IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.532 OF 2001
BALGONDA SHIVGONDA BHOJKAR )...APPLICANT
V/s.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT
Mr.Sagar Ruparel i/b. Mr.Ganesh Gole, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.Prashant Jadhav, APP for the Respondent State.
CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 13th MARCH 2018
P.C. :
filed by the nonapplicant herein i.e. State of Maharashtra challenging acquittal of the present applicant.
2 Heard both sides. The learned Advocate for the
applicant/ respondent in appeal submitted that the appeal is of
avk 1/2
4-APPA- 358-2018.doc
the year 2001 and the applicant is an aged person. The amount involved is Rs.250/ and therefore, the appeal needs to be heard expeditiously.
3 The appeal is by the State challenging acquittal of the present applicant of offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This court is hearing the appeals finally by giving priority to appeals wherein appellants are languishing behind bars for more than five years. Hearing of those appeals is going on and several such appeals are pending on the board for final hearing of this court. In view of the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the matter of Hussain vs. Union of India1 the subject appeal, therefore, cannot be taken up for hearing.
The application is, therefore, rejected.
(A. M. BADAR, J.)
avk 2/2
1 2017 (5) SCC 702
Balgonda Shivgonda Bhojkar
The State of Maharashtra
A. M. Badar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
