The applicant sought an adjournment in a criminal appeal. The court noted the applicant's lack of interest and rejected the application for want of prosecution after a previous last chance was granted.
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.
(3)APPANo.1802019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.180 OF 2019
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.345 OF 2016
Uttam Subhash Kshirsagar ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Ms.Ashesha Chheda i/b. Mr.Aniket Nikam, Advocate for the
Applicant.
Mr.Vinod Chate, APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : A.M.BADAR J.
DATED : 26th SEPTEMBER 2019.
P.C.:
1Though the last chance was granted to the applicant to
work out the matter, today again adjournment is being sought in
this application of the year 2019. It appears that the applicant is
not interested in prosecuting the instant application.
2The application is, therefore, rejected for want of
prosecution as no further time can be granted in view of the last
chance accorded by this Court on 18th September 2019.
1/1
Gaikwad RD
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant final adjournment when applicant is not interested in prosecuting.
Uttam Subhash Kshirsagar
The State of Maharashtra
A.M.Badar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court