Irfan Jalalkhan Aalmel and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Mar 2025WP/5717/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Alleged interpolation/fabrication of Exhibit-34 Application in Roznama dated 31-08-2024 of Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2022 (arising from RCC No. 487 of 2020); entry allegedly inserted after arguments heard and matter adjourned for judgment; Record and Proceedings already received 30-08-2022; missing “Other side to say” endorsement; prima facie abuse of process; affidavit directed; no stay — Sessions Judge permitted to proceed; next date 25-06-2025; Bombay High Court, Madhav J. Jamdar, J.; W.P. 5717/2024.

What did the court decide?

Interim order only: Petitioners' counsel granted time to file an Affidavit; matter stood over to 25th June 2025; Court clarified that no stay was granted of Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2022 and the learned Sessions Judge may proceed with the appeal. ¶¶35

Irfan Jalalkhan Aalmel and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the Exhibit-34 Application, recorded in handwriting in the Roznama dated 31 August 2024 of Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2022, was inserted after the matter was closed for judgment.

¶¶28

Court's answer

Prima facie observation, with the point left open pending affidavits: this is a very serious matter and, on the face of it, the filing of the Exhibit-34 Application after the matter was adjourned for judgment is an abuse of the process of law.

¶¶33

Ratio / Principle

There is no stay of the proceedings of Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2022; the learned Sessions Judge may proceed with the appeal.

¶¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Madhav J. Jamdar, J.), interim order dated 11 June 2025 in Writ Petition No.5717 of 2024 (Irfan Jalalkhan Almel & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.), Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction. Respondent No.2 contended that the Exhibit-34 Application (calling for the Record and Proceedings of RCC No. 487 of 2020), shown in handwriting in the Roznama dated 31-08-2024 of Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2022, was a doubtful entry inserted after the appeal had been heard and adjourned for judgment — the Record and Proceedings having already been received on 30-08-2022 and their receipt recorded in the Roznama dated 12-09-2022, and the Trial Court's usual “Other side to say” endorsement being absent. The Court observed this to be a very serious matter and that, on the face of it, filing of such an application after adjournment for judgment is an abuse of the process of law. Counsel for the Petitioners was granted time to file an Affidavit; the matter was stood over to 25-06-2025; and it was clarified that there is no stay of the appeal and the learned Sessions Judge may proceed with it.

¶1

901 WP 5717.24.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5717 OF 2024

¶5

Irfan Jalalkhan Almel & Ors. …Petitioners Versus

¶6

State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶7

…Respondents

¶8

Mr. Karma Vivan, a/w Mr. Tejas Kothalikar, Advocate for Petitioners.

¶9

Ms. P.P. Bhosale, APP for State.

¶10

Mr. Vikas Shivarkar, Advocates for Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 11^th June 2025

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Mr. Shivarkar, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2

¶14

points out Roznama dated 31^st August 2024 recorded in Criminal

¶15

Appeal No.82 of 2022 which is reproduced herein below :-

Page 1 of 4

Dusane

901 WP 5717.24.DOC

Typed copy of above Roznama is as follows :-

¶20

Todays Date Roznama Next/Disposal 31-08-2024 called on today Applicant and Adv 24-09-2024 present App present Both Adv argument heard

¶21

Roznama dated 31st August 2024 shown on the Website of

¶22

ecourts.gov.in is as under :-

¶23

Mr. Shivarkar, learned Counsel submits that Exhibit-34

¶24

Application, which is mentioned in the Roznama in handwriting is a doubtful entry in the Roznama and said Exhibit-34 document is

Page 2 of 4

Dusane

901 WP 5717.24.DOC

also very doubtful. He states that there is grave possibility that the same is inserted later on after the matter is closed for Judgment.

¶29

To substantiate said contention, he submits that by said Application bearing Exhibit-34, Record and Proceedings of RCC No. 487 of 2020 was called. He points out Roznama dated 3^rd August 2022 wherein it is recorded that the matter is adjourned to 12^th September 2022 for receipt of Record and Proceedings. Thereafter, handwritten noting on the Roznama, (which is not the part of Roznama) mentions that for calling Record and Proceedings, letter has been sent on 16^th August 2022 and thereafter Record and Proceedings have been received by the Registry of the learned Sessions Court on 30^th August 2022. He further states that the same is reflected in the Roznama dated 12^th September 2022 which specifically records that Record and Proceedings was received and thereafter the matter was adjourned for filing paper-book charges. He further states that on 31^st August 2024, after hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, the case was adjourned for judgment and thereafter this doubtful document bearing Exhibit-34 has been inserted by handwriting in the Roznama. He states that learned

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

901 WP 5717.24.DOC

¶32

Trial Court on every application has passed order “Other side to say”, which is missing on said Exhibit-34.

¶33

This is a very serious matter where after the matter is adjourned for judgment, at the instance of the present Petitioner, said Exhibit-34 Application is allegedly filed by contending that the Record and Proceedings be called for. On the face of it, filing of said Application is the abuse of the process of law, when the Record and Proceedings have already been received on 12^th September 2022 as reflected in the Roznama and the matter has been heard and thereafter adjourned for judgment.

¶34