High Court rejected the petition challenging a Magistrate's order where only Accused 3 was sentenced despite findings against Accused 1 and 3. The Court noted the operative part limited sentencing to Accused 3.
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.
21 WP 659-19.doc
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 659 OF 2019
Ravindra D. Hingwala Since Deceased Through His Legal Representative Jyoti Ravindra Hingwala
...Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Satellite Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
...Respondents
Mr. S.G. Deshmukh i/b. Mr. N.N. Bhosle for Petitioner. Mr. Manoj Mohite a/w. Mr. Kushal Mor i/b. Mr. A.D. Kanani for Respondent No. 1.
Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for Respondent – State.
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 9th SEPTEMBER 2019
PER COURT:
Bhagyawant
21 WP 659-19.doc
2/3
properly considered the contention of the Petitioner and mechanically rejected the revision filed by the Petitioner. At the cost of repetition, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would urge that, when the finding of conviction as against Accused No. 1 and 3 are recorded in Para 21 of the judgment of the learned Magistrate, the sentence should have been followed even as against Accused No. 1. Therefore, he submits that, petition deserves consideration.
Bhagyawant
21 WP 659-19.doc
3/3
operative part of the order only reference is made to the Accused No. 3 Kiran Popatlal Amin. Since the words “has” and “he” has been mentioned in Para 23 and 24 and as it is clear that, only Accused No. 3-Kiran Popatlal Amin is sentenced. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to comprehend the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and to cause interference in the order passed by the learned Magistrate and to clarify that even the said Court ought to have sentenced by imposing fine to Accused No. 1. In that view of the matter, this Curt is of the opinion that, said prayer deserves no consideration while exercising writ jurisdiction. However, in case, remedy is available to the Petitioner including filing of appeal challenging the order of Magistrate, in that case, Petitioner may avail such remedy. In case remedy is availed, the concerned Court to decide the said proceeding in accordance with law. With the above observations, writ petition stands rejected.
[S.S. SHINDE, J.]
Bhagyawant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Magistrate should be ordered to pass sentence on Accused No. 1 despite the operative part of the order only convicting and sentencing Accused No. 3.
Whether letter of conclusion in the judgment was consistent with the operative part of the order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jyoti Ravindra Hingwala
M/s. Satellite Developers Pvt. Ltd.
S.S. Shinde
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
