Allowed

Sandeep Pandurang More and Anr. v. the Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Oct 2019APPA/1344/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application, the High Court allowed the restoration of Criminal Appeal No.1043 of 2018, which had been dismissed by a coordinate bench for the appellant's failure to furnish a spare copy of the appeal papers for service on the Central Bureau of Investigation, holding the dismissal as inappropriate for an already admitted appeal.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal No.1043 of 2018 restored; appellant directed to furnish spare copy for service within two weeks.

Sandeep Pandurang More and Anr. Vs the Central… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(25)APPANo.13442019.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1344 OF 2019

¶5

IN

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1043 OF 2018

¶7

Sandeep Pandurang More & Anr....Applicants
Versus
The Central Bureau of Investigation
& Anr.…Respondents

¶8

Mr.Ammar I.Nizami i/b. Mohammed Umer Kazi, Advocate for the
Applicants.

¶9

Mr.Vinod Chate, APP for the Respondent No.2/State.

¶10

CORAM : A.M.BADAR J.

¶11

DATED : 9th OCTOBER 2019.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1This is an application for restoration of Criminal
Appeal No.1043 of 2018, which was already admitted for final
hearing by this Court vide Order dated 19th September 2018.

¶14

2The appeal was challenging conviction of the
applicant/appellant of the offences punishable under Section 120B
and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as resultant sentence
imposed on him by the learned trial Court.

¶15

1/3

¶16

Gaikwad RD

¶17

(25)APPANo.13442019.odt

¶18

3It is seen that after admission of the appeal, the
applicant/appellant failed to furnish spare copy meant for
effecting service on the prosecuting agency i.e. Central Bureau of
Investigation. The matter was then listed on 29th March 2019 and
on that date coordinate Bench of this Court (Honourable
Shri.Nitin W. Sambre, J) passed a conditional Order which is to the
effect that if the spare copy meant for effecting service is not
furnished within three weeks and if the service is not effected
within six weeks thereafter, the appeal shall stand dismissed
without reference to the Court. It is seen that consequently the
appeal came to be dismissed as the applicant/appellant failed to
supply spare copy meant for effecting service on prosecuting
agency i.e. respondent No.1/CBI.

¶19

4The appeal is challenging conviction and resultant
sentence imposed on the applicant/appellant. It was already
admitted for final hearing. As such, it ought not to have been
dismissed for want of prosecution. The learned Counsel for the
applicant/appellant undertake to supply the spare copy meant for
effecting service on respondent No.1/CBI within a period of one
week from today. It appears that non-furnishing of spare copy was
due to inadvertence and, therefore, the Order :

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(i)The application is allowed.

¶22

2/3

¶23

Gaikwad RD

¶24

(25)APPANo.13442019.odt

¶25

(ii)Criminal Appeal No.1043 of 2018 is restored to the file of this Court.

¶26

(iii)The applicant/appellant to furnish spare copy meant for effecting service on respondent No.1/CBI within a period of two weeks from today.

¶27

(iv)On furnishing spare copy issue notice to the respondent No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.1043 of 2018 making it returnable on 29^th January 2020.

¶28

(A.M.BADAR, J.)

¶29

3/3

¶30

Gaikwad RD

Sandeep Pandurang More and Anr. v. the Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Pandurang More and Anr. v. the Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

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

Amin Abdul Kader Memon Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradeep Dharma Pawar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nanda @ Nandabai Baban Bagve Vs Baban Pandurang Bagve and Ors.

Mahiboob @ Tanya Peerahamad Shabhai Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manish Yashdev Bahl Vs Suman M Bahl Alias Suman Giansingh Saini and Anr.

Puneet Kumar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.