Dismissed

Ganesh S/O. Harikisan Chhangani v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Department of Home Manatralaya Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC20 Apr 2018WP/48/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a direction for the production of seized weapons in R.C.C. No.328/2000. The High Court held the petition premature as the trial court had yet to decide the application and is seized of the matter. The writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal writ petition was dismissed as premature; no direction was issued for immediate production of weapons.

Ganesh S/O. Harikisan Chhangani Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 cwp48.18.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.48 OF 2018

¶4

[Ganesh s/o Harikisan Chhangani .vs. State of Maharashtra and others]

¶5

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

Court's or Judge's orders

¶8

¶9

Shri R.J. Mirza, Counsel for the petitioner, Shri B.M. Lonare, APP for the respondents-State.

¶10

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND

¶11

MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ. DATED : APRIL 20, 2018.

¶12

By this criminal writ petition the petitioner seeks a direction against the respondents to produce the seized property including the weapons in connection with the crime in the proceedings in R.C.C. No.328/2000.

¶13

It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that though the Assistant Public Prosecutor has made an application before the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Warud for calling the seized weapons so that the complainant and the other witnesses of the prosecution would be confronted with the same, the trial court is not deciding the application. It is submitted that if the weapons of offence are not produced in the court, the family members of the victim will be greatly prejudiced.

¶14

We find that the petition is premature. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Warud would surely decide the application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, as it is not decided till date. If an adverse order is passed, it would be for the Assistant Public Prosecutor to take appropriate action. However, a direction cannot be issued while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the prosecution to immediately produce the weapons in the trial court. The trial court is seized of the matter. We,

¶15

2 cwp48.18.odt

¶16

therefore, find that the trial court would take appropriate steps in the matter on the application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶17

In the result, we dispose of the criminal writ petition. Order accordingly.

¶18

JUDGE JUDGE

¶19

Gulande

Ganesh S/O. Harikisan Chhangani v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Department of Home Manatralaya Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh S/O. Harikisan Chhangani v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Department of Home Manatralaya Mumbai and Others

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

Shri Shyamkishore S/O Ramnarayan Jaiswal and Another Vs Shri. Ganeshji S/O Ramchandra Naik

Nahush S/O Sanjio Dodke Vs State of Maha. Thr. Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Dept., Mumbai and Others

Dr. Rajeshree W/O. Vilas Tayde Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Police Station Ambazari Nagpur and Another

Vilas Maroti Kinake Vs Dy. Inspector General (Prisons) East Division Nagpur and Another

Shri. Vencil Roy Miranda (in Jail) Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary Ministry of Home Department Mantralaya Mumbai and Anothe

Sangeet Rajaram Ingale (in Jail) Vs Deputy Inspepctor General of Prison, Easter Region Nagpur and Another