This writ petition challenged a conviction under sections 386, 387 and 34 of the IPC. The petitioner argued against dismissal for want of prosecution, but the court noted this ground was previously rejected by the Supreme Court. Finding no case for interference, the petition was dismissed.
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.
(17)WPNo.462020.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.46 OF 2020
Dinesh Seetaram Shetty ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr.Arjun S. Kode, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.S.V.Gavand, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the
Respondent/State.
CORAM : A.M.BADAR J.
DATED : 20th JANUARY 2020.
P.C.:
1Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner/convicted accused.
2By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the
Judgment and Order dated 29/11/2002 whereby he was convicted
by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 3rd Court,
Esplanade, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections
386 and 387 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year apart
from direction to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo
1/3
Gaikwad RD
(17)WPNo.462020.doc
further rigorous imprisonment for thee months on each count.
The petitioner is also praying for quashing and setting aside the
Judgment and Order dated 23/09/2003 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge thereby confirming the Judgment and
Order convicting the petitioner and sentencing him accordingly.
He is further praying that the petitioner be heard on merits
regarding the conviction and sentence recorded against him by the
Courts below and during pendency of this petition, he be released
on bail.
3I heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State.
4Undisputedly, the Judgment and Order of the learned
Appellate Court confirming the conviction and sentence imposed
on the petitioner came to be challenged by the petitioner before
this Court by filing Revision Petition bearing No.493 of 2003 and
that Revision Petition came to be dismissed on 23/04/2008 for
want of prosecution. The petitioner/convicted accused then
applied for restoration of the Revision Petition bearing No.493 of
2003 by filing an application for condonation of delay being
No.107 of 2012 apart from application for restoration of the
Revision Petition which came to be numbered as 108 of 2012.
Both these applications viz. Application for condonation of delay
and application for restoration came to be dismissed for want of
2/3
Gaikwad RD
(17)WPNo.462020.doc
prosecution by this Court on 22nd August 2012 and 11th September
2012. Thereafter, the petitioner/convicted accused moved an
application for restoration of these applications and that
application bearing No.343 of 2012 came to be rejected on merit
vide Order dated 15th October 2012 by this Court. The petitioner
then approached the Honourable Apex Court feeling aggrieved by
Order dated 15/10/2012 passed by this Court in Criminal
Application No.343 of 2012 arising out of Criminal Revision
Application 493 of 2003. In that Special Leave Petition, the delay
came to be condoned, but the Honourable Apex Court dismissed
that Special Leave Petition on 10/02/2014.
5The learned Counsel for the petitioner/ convicted
accused sought to argue that the Revision Petition cannot be
dismissed for want of prosecution. The petition cannot be heard
on this aspect particularly when he has raised same ground before
the Honourable Apex Court and that ground did not find favour
with the Honourable Apex Court as the Special Leave Petition filed
by him came to be rejected on 10/02/2014.
6In this view of the matter, no interference is called for
in the instant petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.
Raju D. Gaikwad
Digitally signed by Raju D. Gaikwad Date: 2020.01.20 18:43:12 +0530
3/3
Gaikwad RD
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the dismissal of a revision petition for want of prosecution when the ground was already rejected by the Supreme Court.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Dinesh Seetaram Shetty
The State of Maharashtra
A.M.Badar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court