Partly allowed

Jawahar Chellaram Bijlani@Suresh Bijlani v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Apr 2019WP/2233/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal writ petition 2233 of 2019, the High Court at Bombay granted liberty to the petitioner to file applications under Section 231(2) CrPC and Section 135 Indian Evidence Act. The court directed the trial court to decide these on merits following relevant Supreme Court precedents regarding delay in trial. The accompanying criminal application was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to prefer application under Section 231(2) CrPC and Section 135 IEA; trial court directed to decide on merits within two weeks if filed within one week.

Jawahar Chellaram Bijlani@Suresh Bijlani Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

907-wp-2233-2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2233 OF 2019

¶4

Jawahar Chellaram Bijalan @ Suresh Bijlani ..Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent

¶5

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.232 OF 2019 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2233 OF 2019

¶6

Sandeep Sunil Kumar ..Intervenor

¶7

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶8

Jawahar Chellaram Bijalan @ Suresh Bijlani ..Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent

¶9

Mr.Vikram Chaudhri, Senior Advocate a/w Dr.Sujay Kantawala i/b Sebin Michael Jospeh for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mrs. A.S. Pai, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶11

Mr.Tanvi Nizam i/b Mr.Ameya Lambhale for the Intervenor.

¶12

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 26^th APRIL 2019

¶14

P.C.

¶15

Heard Mr.Chaudhri, learned Senior Counsel for the

¶16

petitioner and Ms.Pai, learned APP for the Respondent-State.

¶17

page 1 of 4

¶18

907-wp-2233-2019

¶19

Perused the order dated 18.12.2018 passed in Criminal Application No.549 of 2018 with Criminal Application No.459 of 2018 in Writ Petition No.4617 of 2018. By the said order the Division Bench of this Court directed the Trial Judge to conduct the Trial of the Sessions Case on day to day basis.

¶20

Mr.Chaudhri, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the hearing of the Sessions Case was held on 68 datess. Out of these 68 days, the Sessions Case was adjourned 48 times on the ground that Special PP is not available. From 18.12.2018, till now only 16 witnesses are examined. He heavily relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1329 of 2018 which is annexed at Exhibit-B, Page 155. The learned Special PP Ms.Pai do not dispute that as on 18.12.2018 only 16 witnesses are examined. She however, state that she is not in a position to verify the contentions of the Mr.Chaudhri, learned counsel for the petitioner. She also submitted that the report may be called for from the Trial Court requesting the Presiding Officer to give explanation about the delay.

¶21

After hearing the matter for some time, Mr.Chaudhri, learned Senior Counsel submit that the liberty may be granted to

¶22

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 4

¶23

907-wp-2233-2019

¶24

the petitioner to prefer an application under Section 231(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 135 of the Indian Evidence Act and the Trial Court be directed to decide this application in light of the decision of the Apex Court in case of State of Kerala V/s. Rasheed in Criminal Appeal No.1321 of 2018 and order dated 11.03.2019 in Petitions (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1264 of 2019. Ms.Pai, has no objection if the said request of Shri.Choudhary is granted.

¶25

In light of above, we dispose of the petition giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer an application under Section 231(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 135 of the Indian Evidence Act and such application should be decided by the trial Court in Sessions of the Trail on its own merit and needless to State, in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶26

It is expressly made clear that all the points and contentions of respective parties are kept open. If the application is preferred within a period of one week, it shall be decided within a period of two weeks.

¶27

In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, Criminal

¶28

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 4

¶29

Application No.232 of 2019 do not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly.

¶30

(SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)

Jawahar Chellaram Bijlani@Suresh Bijlani v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jawahar Chellaram Bijlani@Suresh Bijlani 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Supriya Sunil Salunke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Avinash S/O Bharat Ahire Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary and Ors.

Ram Ramsharan Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Chandrakant Shivram Karambale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ali Reza Abdi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ranjeet Ram Chandi Vs Natasha Lynn Pinto and Anr.