Dismissed

Mahesh Kariman Tirki and Others v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Aheri Gadchiroli

Bombay HC5 Mar 2024APPA/266/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The State sought a six-week stay on the High Court's judgment acquitting the appellants to enable an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court held that under Section 362 CrPC, it lacks the power to alter or review its judgment after signing. Consequently, the application for stay was rejected to protect the fundamental right of liberty.

What did the court decide?

Application for stay of acquittal judgment rejected.

Mahesh Kariman Tirki and Others vs State of Maharashtra Thr… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 appa.266.2024 in criminal appeal nos. 136 and 137 of

¶2

2017 saibaba

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.266 OF 2024 IN C RIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 136 OF 2017

¶5

Mahesh Kariman Tirki and ors.

¶6

..vs..

¶7

State of Maharashtra

¶8

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶9

- - - - Dr. Birendra Safar, Advocate General (through V.C.) a/w Shri Devendra Chauhan, Public Prosecutor for the applicant/respondent. Shri Trideep Pais, Senior Advocate (through V.C.) a/w Shri N.B. Rathod, Advocate and Shri H.P. Lingayat, Advocate for the appellant/non-applicant.

¶10

CORAM: VINAY JOSHI AND VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ. DATED : 05/03/2024.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

This application is moved by the State seeking stay to the effect and operation of the judgment and order dated 05.03.2024 (i.e. today) passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.136 and 137 of 2017 for the period of six weeks.

¶13

Heard learned Advocate General on behalf of the State and learned Advocate Shri Rathod on behalf of the appellant/accused. Learned Advocate General made a submission that the matter pertains to offences against the State and are of serious nature having wide implications. The charges are serious one. The Trial Court after considering the evidence, recorded the finding of guilt. It is submitted that several issues of law has been dealt by this Court which requires to be tested

¶14

2 appa.266.2024 in criminal appeal nos. 136 and 137 of 2017 saibaba

¶15

before the Supreme Court. It is submitted that already the State has filed a Special Leave Petition and has sought urgent listing of the same, which would require some time. It is also submitted that the judgment of acquittal, which is pronounced today, is not available at present on the website.

¶16

On our query about empowerment of this Court enabling us to stay the proceedings after acquittal, it has been submitted that neither the Code of Criminal Procedure nor any law precludes this Court from passing a stay order, which is a matter of discretion. Finally it is submitted that in order to give a breathing time to the State, stay be granted for some days.

¶17

Per contra, learned Advocate Shri Rathod representing other side has submitted that already the State has moved to the Supreme Court and thus, this Court has become functus officio. He has attracted our attention to Section 262 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code) to contend that after signing the final judgment and order, the Court cannot review or alter the same. It is submitted that considering the facts and law, this Court has passed exhaustive judgment of acquittal on all issues, and thus, there is no occasion to grant stay after acquittal.

¶18

We have also heard Shri Pais through video conferencing, who has equally resisted the urge of the State to grant stay. He has canvassed that this Court has held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges and on acquittal directed that the accused be set at

¶19

3 appa.266.2024 in criminal appeal nos. 136 and 137 of 2017 saibaba

¶20

liberty. He would submit that now, this Court cannot reverse the part of said order by passing further orders to stall the effect, and thus, it would be against the spirit of Section 362 of the Code. He has attracted our attention to Section 390 of the Code to contend that those powers are vested with the Appellate Court only. He has also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal and ors. (2004) 7 SCC 338 to contend that the same Court has no power to recall its own order. To sum up, he has submitted that after delivery of the judgment of acquittal, this Court has become functus officio and there is no question of exercising any discretion.

¶21

Again learned Advocate General made a short submission stating that Section 362 of the Code would not come into play since the State is not seeking in either way to reverse or alter the findings but a prayer is to stay the effect of the order for few days to give a reasonable opportunity to the State to test the judgment and order of this Court before Higher Forum. It is submitted that limited relief has been asked which can be granted in the interest of justice and in particular for giving fair opportunity to the State

¶22

After hearing both appeals exhaustively, considering the evidence and submissions, today we have delivered the final judgment and order of acquittal. Precisely, we held that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused and there are technical glitches too. Though we put a specific query about

¶23

4 appa.266.2024 in criminal appeal nos. 136 and 137 of 2017 saibaba

¶24

powers after rendering the judgment of acquittal to grant stay, we could not get the satisfactory answer but a generalize submission that this Court still has discretion. We are not in an agreement with said submission to use discretion in the matter where the Code does not empower us to pass an order of stay after the Court has become functus officio.

¶25

Though it is submitted that charges are serious however in absence of power merely by looking cahrges we are not inclined to make any adventures. We have already acquitted the accused and directed to release them forthwith, if not required in other crime.

¶26

In the circumstances, we cannot stall the effect of the judgment and order of acquittal particularly in absence of power which may affect the fundamental right of life and personal liberty of individual. In view of the above, we are not inclined to grant stay to our own judgment and order of acquittal, hence the application stands rejected.

¶27

We hereby make it clear that today itself the judgment would be uploaded.

¶28

The application stands disposed of in above terms.

¶29

(VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)

¶30

Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal Trupti Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 05/03/2024 19:50:03

Mahesh Kariman Tirki and Others v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Aheri Gadchiroli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Kariman Tirki and Others v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Aheri Gadchiroli

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

The State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Hingna Nagpur Vs Raju S/O Chhannulal Birha

Ashish @ Maddy Virendra Rathod Vs State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Gittikhadan, Nagpur

Brayan Ibrahim Keneath Bastiyan Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Police Station Officer, Police Station Gittikhadan, Nagpur.

Mahesh Kariman Tirki and Others Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Aheri Gadchiroli

G. N. Saibaba Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Aheri Gadchiroli Maharashtra