Partly allowed

Rajendra Bhiku Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Jan 2018APPR/34/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application sought suspension of the applicant's sentence despite a delay in forwarding the blood sample for analysis. The High Court held that a case for suspension was made out due to the procedural violation regarding the blood sample forwarding timeline.

What did the court decide?

The applicant's sentence of imprisonment is suspended pending the hearing of this application, and the applicant is enlarged on bail on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties.

Rajendra Bhiku Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

appr-34-18.doc

¶2

rpa 1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.34 OF 2018 IN

¶5

CRI. REVISION APPLICATION NO.45 OF 2018

¶6

Rajendra Bhiku Pawar *Vs.*	.. Applicant
The State of Maharashtra	.. Respondent

¶7

Mr.Mohan N. Devkule i/b. Mr.Rakesh R. Bhatkar, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶8

Mr.M.G. Patil, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶9

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

¶10

DATED : JANUARY 18, 2018.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

The applicant has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 85(1)(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, vide judgment and order dated 2^nd September, 2016 and he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the applicant has to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The Appeal preferred by the appellant is rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, vide judgment and order dated 29^th December, 2017.

¶13

rpa 2/3 appr-34-18.doc

¶14

2 The main contention of the applicant is that the blood sample of the applicant – accused was forwarded belatedly for the analysis after a period of about one month. In accordance with the Rules under the said Act, blood sample is required to be forwarded within seven days. Learned APP submitted that there is concurrent finding and no case for interference is made out. It is submitted that the blood sample was taken on the same day i.e. on the day of incident and it was preserved by using preservatives.

¶15

3 Considering the above aspects, the case for suspension of sentence is made out. Hence, this application is required to be allowed.

¶16

4 Hence, I pass the following order:

¶17

:: O R D E R ::

¶18

(i) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this application, the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajapur, vide judgment

¶19

rpa 3/3 appr-34-18.doc

¶20

and order dated 2^nd September, 2016, passed in Summary Criminal Case No.13 of 2014, which is confirmed by the Sessions Court vide judgment and order dated 29^th December, 2017, is suspended and the applicant is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶21

(ii) Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶22

( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Rajendra Bhiku Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Bhiku Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sainath @ Sarvesh Trivikram Gharse Vs Shrikrishna @ Manish Yashwant Prabhu and Ors.

Kishor Anant Vichare Vs Mitali Milind Mayekar and Anr.

Jignesh Prakash Shah Vs Central Bureau of Investigation Banking Securities and Fraud Cell

Deepak Hiralal Mewani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Harshit Vanraj Merchant Vs CBI Anti Corruption Branch and Anr.

Rajendra Bhiku Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra