Allowed

Gurudev Ramesh Marathe v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Sept 2023APEAL/873/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal allowed wherein the High Court set aside an order framing charge under MCOC Act due to procedural irregularity, noting the appellant had no lawyer when the charge was framed based on another co-accused's representative, thereby denying the right to seek discharge under Section 227 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Order framing charge under Special MCOCA Case No. 10 of 2017 dated 20th August 2022 set aside; appellant directed to file discharge application under Section 227 CrPC within one week; Special Judge di

Gurudev Ramesh Marathe Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AS:26925-DB

¶2

1 / 4

¶3

28-apeal-873-2023.docx

¶4

varsha

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 873 OF 2023

¶7

Gurudev Ramesh Marathe … Appellant vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶8

Mr. Karma Vivan, for the Appellant Mrs. P.P. Shinde, A.P.P for the State.

¶9

Mr Sameer Wagh, API, Talegaon Dabade Police Station is present.

¶10

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & GAURI GODSE, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 8^th SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶12

ORDER :-

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the respondent-State.

¶14

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent

¶15

of the parties and the Appeal is heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶16

The appellant has impugned the order dated 20^th August 2022 passed by the learned Special Judge under MCOC Act, in

¶17

2 / 4

¶18

28-apeal-873-2023.docx

¶19

Special MCOCA Case No. 10 of 2017, by which the learned Judge framed charge as against the appellant and other coaccused.

¶20

The principal ground on which quashing of the charge framed against the appellant is sought, is that the learned Judge framed charge only having regard to the statement made by Advocate Dushing, on behalf of some of the co-accused on 20^th August 2022 i.e. that the accused had no objection for framing of charge. He submits that the appellant had never given his Vakalatnama to any Advocate nor had engaged any Advocate to represent him on the said date, when the charge was framed. He submits thus, the appellant was denied his legitimate right to file an application seeking his discharge from the said case under section 227 of the Cr. PC.

¶21

Learned APP does not dispute the aforesaid facts in particular, the fact, that the appellant had not engaged any lawyer on 20^th August 2022.

¶22

Perused the papers. A co-ordinate bench of this Court

¶23

3 / 4

¶24

28-apeal-873-2023.docx

¶25

(Coram: A.S. Gadkari and P.D. Naik, JJ.) vide order dated 27^th January 2023, passed in Criminal Appeal (St.) No. 18710 of 2022 had allowed the appeal filed by the appellant therein, also a co-accused in the present case, on the same ground as sought for by the appellant in the present appeal. The said order is at page 55, Exhibit-G of the appeal. This Court held that the appellant therein, had not engaged a lawyer on 20^th August 2022 and that the statement made by Advocate Dushing on behalf of some of the co-accused on 20^th August 2023 could not bind the appellant therein. Same is the case in the present Appeal. Thus, the appellant’s legitimate right to file an application seeking his discharge under section 227 of the Cr. PC before framing of the charge, has been denied to him.

¶26

In view of the aforesaid and having regard to the order passed by the co-ordinate bench dated 27^th January 2023, we set aside the order dated 20^th August 2022 passed below Exhibit No. 360 in Special MCOCA Case No. 10 of 2017 i.e. Order framing charge, qua the appellant.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant

¶28

4 / 4

¶29

28-apeal-873-2023.docx

¶30

will file an application seeking his discharge under section 227 of the Cr. PC within one week, from the date of uploading of this order. Statement accepted.

¶31

Accordingly, the learned Judge seized with the MCOCA Case No. 10 of 2017 to hear the parties and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, on the said application and thereafter, proceed with the next stage, depending on the outcome of the application.

¶32

Appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶33

We make it clear that we have not heard the appeal on merits and as such all contentions of all parties are kept open.

¶34

All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶35

(GAURI GODSE, J.)

¶36

(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

Gurudev Ramesh Marathe v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurudev Ramesh Marathe 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

Mannan Sahadat Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mannan Sahadat Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mangesh Mahadeo Bhale Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vishwas Janardan Salunkhe Vs State of Maharashtra

Laxman Prabhu Wagh Vs State of Maharashtra

Snehal Shashikant Gawali Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.