A criminal revision application was disposed of as infructuous because the impugned order had already been implemented by the calling of P.W.1, rendering no substantive decision necessary.
Application 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.
revn-4-15.doc
rpa 1/1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRI.REVISION APPLICATION NO.4 OF 2015
The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Vs. Mirza Himayat Inayat Baig @ Ahmed Baig @ Yusuf .. Respondent
Mrs.Geeta P. Mulekar, APP for the Applicant – State. Mr.Anthony Steven Mathews, ACP (1), Anti Terrorism Squad, Maharashtra, Mumbai, Kalachowki, present.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATED : JANUARY 5, 2018.
P.C. :
Learned APP on instructions from the officer (Anthony Steven Mathews) who is present in the Court submits that the impugned order is already implemented by recalling P.W.1. He, therefore, submits that this application has become infructuous. In view of the above, the application stands disposed of as infructuous.
( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
The State of Maharashtra
Mirza Himayat Inayat Baig
Prakash D. Naik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
