Disposed

Shahanawaj Mohammed Hussain Shaikh and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Apr 2018APPA/94/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a criminal appeal and an application for condonation of delay as infructuous, noting that the appellants had filed two appeals against the same conviction and had explicitly chosen to pursue one of them.

What did the court decide?

The present Criminal Appeal and the application for condonation of delay were disposed of as infructuous.

Shahanawaj Mohammed Hussain Shaikh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

jdk 1 14.cr.appa.94_apeal.st.52.18.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 94 OF 2018 IN CRI.APPEAL ST. NO. 52 OF 2018 WITH CRI. APPEAL ST. NO. 52 OF 2018

¶3

Shahanawaj Mohammed Hussain Shaikh and Another

¶4

.. Applicants / Appellants

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra

¶7

.. Respondent

¶8

Mr. Shashikant P. Chaudhari Advocate appointed for Applicants / Appellants Mrs. G.P.Mulekar APP for the State

¶9

CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI ACTING C.J. AND M.S.SONAK, J.

¶10

DATED : APRIL 10, 2018

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1 Cri. Appeal St. No. 52 of 2018 has been preferred by original accused no.1 Shahanawaj Mohd. Hussain and original accused no.2 Taraparvin Sadik Shaikh against the very same judgment and order dated 10.3.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan in Sessions Case No. 211 of 2013. By the said judgment and order, both the appellants

¶13

1 of 3

¶14

jdk 2 14.cr.appa.94_apeal.st.52.18.doc

¶15

were convicted and sentenced under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. This appeal has been preferred against the said judgment and order. As there is delay in preferring the present appeal, Cri. Application No. 94 of 2018 has been preferred for condonation of delay. However, office record shows that against the very same judgment and order, both these applicants / appellants had earlier filed Criminal Appeal No. 721 of 2017. The said appeal was filed by Advocate Shri. S.P. Kadam on behalf of the applicants / appellants. As there was delay in preferring the said appeal, Cri. Application No. 942 of 2017 was preferred by these appellants. The delay was condoned and the appeal was admitted by order dated 9.10.2017.

¶16

2 As two appeals cannot be preferred against the very same judgment and order by the very same accused, hence, one of the appeal has to be disposed of and only one appeal can go on. In this view of the matter, by order dated 15.3.2018, we had asked learned A.P.P. to inform the Superintendent of Prison where these appellants are lodged, to record their statements wherein the appellants should indicate

¶17

2 of 3

¶18

jdk 3 14.cr.appa.94_apeal.st.52.18.doc

¶19

which appeal they want to pursue. The said statements were directed to be produced today. Accordingly, learned A.P.P. has produced the statements of the appellants. Both the statements are taken on record and marked "X-Colly." for identification.

¶20

2 In the said statements, both the appellants have stated that they wish to pursue Criminal Appeal No. 721 of 2017. In this view of the matter, the present appeal i.e. Cri. Appeal St. No. 52 of 2018 and Cri. Application No. 94 of 2018 for condonation of delay in the said appeal, are disposed of as infructous.

¶21

M.S.SONAK, J. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶22

kandarkar

¶23

3 of 3

Shahanawaj Mohammed Hussain Shaikh and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahanawaj Mohammed Hussain Shaikh and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mujamil Huissein Shabbir Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sajid Akhtar Safique Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shashikant C Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Union of India and Ors. Vs Laxman Hariba Jadhav

Ravi Mangal Shelke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Venugopal Kankayya Rasmal Vs the State of Maharashtra