Ashim Deb and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Apr 2024REVN/150/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

in-person appearance certificate; applicant-in-person; pro se litigant; Criminal Revision Application; Bombay High Court; S. M. Modak, J.; farad sheet; Registrar (Judicial-I); registry scrutiny; pagination; Division Bench petition challenging rules; Criminal Revision No. 92 of 2024; trial Court order dated 13/12/2023; hearing deferred/adjourned; no substantive adjudication.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief decided; hearing deferred - the matter is to be listed after occurrence of any of the events (directions from the Division Bench or appointment of an advocate by the Applicant), and the Registrar (Judicial-I) is to inquire into the farad sheet/scrutiny omission regarding the in-person certificate. ¶22-24

Ashim Deb and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22-24

Issue for consideration

Whether the Criminal Revision Application can be heard when Applicant No. 1 does not possess the certificate permitting him to appear before the Court in person, and neither Division Bench directions nor appointment of an advocate has occurred.

¶15

Court's answer

Since none of the earlier-liberated events (directions from the Division Bench or appointment of an advocate by the Applicant) has occurred, the Court is unable to hear the Applicant and directs that the matter be listed after any of those events occurs.

¶22-24

Ratio / Principle

The Registrar (Judicial-I) is directed to look into the matter and ascertain why the farad sheet does not record that the Applicant is not possessing the certificate to represent his own case, and why scrutiny did not note certification/pagination while listing the matter.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), S. M. Modak, J., 19 April 2024 - Criminal Revision Application No. 150 of 2024 (Ashim Deb & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.). The Office had not granted Applicant No. 1 the certificate required to appear before the Court in person; by an earlier order dated 27/03/2024 in Criminal Revision No. 92 of 2024 the Court had granted him liberty either to bring orders from the Division Bench (where his petition challenging the rules was stated to be pending) or to appoint an advocate. Neither event having occurred, the Court held itself unable to hear the Applicant and directed that the matter be listed after any of those events occurs. The Court further directed the Registrar (Judicial-I) to ascertain why the farad sheet did not record that the Applicant lacked the certificate to represent his own case, noting that scrutiny had neither verified certification nor pagination. The Applicant also drew attention to a trial Court order dated 13/12/2023 reading 'A separate application is already filed hence this petition is disposed of'. No statute or precedent was cited and no merits ruling was made.

¶1

REVN 150 of 2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

REVISION APPLICATION NO. 150 OF 2024

Ashim Deb And Anr

...Applicants

vs.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

¶10

Mr. Ashim Deb	Applicant in-person
Mr. V. N. Sagare	APP for the Respondent-State

¶11

¶12

CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.

¶13

DATE : 19^th APRIL 2024

¶14

P. C. :-

¶15

It is true that the Office has not granted the Applicant No. 1, a certificate of appearing before the Court in-person. This is recorded by me in the Order dated 27/03/2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 92 of 2024. In that matter the present Applicant has also submitted his petition is pending before the Division bench challenging the rules. When inquired, he submitted that today matter is listed before the Division Bench.

¶16

Already this Court has granted liberty to the Applicant to bring

¶17

some orders from the Division bench or to appoint an advocate. Today

¶18

Digitally signed SEEMA by SEEMAKSHITIJ KSHITIJ YELKARDate: YELKAR 2024.04.23 10:43:16 +0530

¶19

1/2

¶20

Seema

¶21

REVN 150 of 2024.doc

¶22

none of the events have happened. So this Court is unable to hear the

¶23

Applicant. Let matter be listed after any of the event (directions if any

¶24

from Division bench or appointment of an advocate) will occur.

¶25

He invited my attention to the Order dated 13/12/2023 passed by the trial Court. The order read as follows :-

¶26

“A separate application is already filed hence this petition is disposed of”.

¶27

In fact, I am directing the Registrar (Judicial-I) to look into this matter and ascertain why it is not mentioned in the farad sheet that the Applicant is not possessing the certificate to represent his own case. It is for the reason that in the scrutiny, they have not mentioned as to

¶28

whether the Applicant has obtained a certificate about appearing inperson without verifying that they have listed the matter and even it is not ascertained that whether pagination is done or not.

¶29

So let Registrar (Judicial-I) to look into this matter.

¶30

2/2

¶31

Seema

Ashim Deb and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashim Deb and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Magma Hdi General Insurance Company Ltd.,Thane Vs Mr. Sandeep Jayaram Khot and Anr.

Mr.Pratap Pandurang Bhoir Vs Mr.Kailas Nanabhau Bavle and Anr.

Mr. Sandeep Jayaram Khot and Anr. Vs Magma Hdi General Insurance Company Ltd.,Thane and Anr.

Prasad Satish Bandivdekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai Vs Mohini Vinayak Bhegade and Ors.

Rohit Jayaraj Menon Vs Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai and Anr.