The High Court dismissed an interim application seeking suspension of sentence filed by an advocate different from the one representing the applicant. The court deprecated the practice and dismissed the application for want of prosecution due to non-appearance.
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.
4.IA84.2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 84 OF 2021
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 538 OF 2014
Ashish Bharat Jadhav. ...Applicant.
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & anr.…Respondents.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 484 OF 2014
Sameer Ashok Bhagwat & anr....Appellants.
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & anr.…Respondents.
None for applicant in IA 84/2021.
Mr. Priyal G. Sarda, advocate for appellant in Appeal No. 538/2014.
None for appellant in Appeal No. 484/2014.
Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for State.
ARUNA S TALWALKAR
Digitally signed by ARUNA S TALWALKAR Date: 2021.10.28 12:54:04 +0530
CORAM:SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV &
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE:OCTOBER 28, 2021.
P.C.
1None present for the applicant.
2It is seen from the record that the appeal is filed through
Senior Counsel Mr. Manoj Mohite. The application under section 389 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by Senior Counsel Mr. Mohite
1 of 2
Talwalkar
4.IA84.2021.doc
was rejected by this Court(Coram: P.V. Hardas & Smt. Anuja Prabhudessai,
JJ) vide order dated 28/7/2014.
3Learned Counsel Mr. P.G. Sarda submits that he has
obtained “No Objection Certificate” from Mr. Mohite in Criminal Appeal
and requests this Court to fix the matter for final hearing. In the
meanwhile, it is seen that Interim Application No. 84 of 2021 is filed
through Advocate Mr. Mahendra Kawchale, who is not appearing in
appeal. Needless to say that an Interim Application seeking suspension of
substantive sentence is filed in main proceedings by another advocate
without obtaining any consent from the advocate appearing in appeal.
This practice is deprecated. The filing of such an interim application only
for the purpose of bail in pending appeal cannot be countenanced.
4In any case, learned Counsel Mr. Kavchale has not
appeared in this matter on 30/8/2021 as well as 21/9/2021. In view of
this, the Interim Application stands dismissed for want of prosecution and
is accordingly disposed of.
(PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J)
(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)
2 of 2
Talwalkar
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an interim application seeking suspension of sentence filed by an advocate not representing the main appellant should be countenanced when no objection was obtained from the advocated appearin
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashish Bharat Jadhav
State of Maharashtra
Aruna S Talwalkar
Sadhana S. Jadhav
Prithviroj K. Chavan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court