Counsel for the petitioner sought discharge for want of instructions and the petitioner made no alternative arrangements for representation. The writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution.
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.
2024:BHC-AS:5459
PMB 2.wp.6172-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6172 OF 2019
JANARDHAN DURGAPRASAD PANDEY ..PETITIONER VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT
Mr. Prashant Pandey a/w Mr. Dinesh Jadhwani a/w Mr. Irfan Unwala for the petitioner.
Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for the State.
Mr. Jai Vohra i/b. Mr. Amit Munde, Spl. P.P. for the respondent-CBI.
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 5, 2024
P.C. :
informed the petitioner that he is not in a position to represent him. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks discharge for want of instructions.
further arrangements are made by the petitioner for representation on his behalf, the Writ Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
1/1
Janardhan Durgaprasad Pandey
The State of Maharashtra
M. S. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
