The High Court dismissed a criminal revision application as infructuous because the Special Court had already acquitted the applicant on 22 March 2016, leaving nothing to survive in the revision.
The revision application stands dismissed as infructuous.
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.
Mamta Kale
24-revn-262-2005.docx
MAMTA AMAR KALE
Digitally signed byMAMTA AMAR KALEDate: 2026.01.1719:41:58 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Revision Application No. 262 of 2005
Arun Meghraj Dagia
… Applicant
versus
Union of India and Ors.
…Respondents
None for the Applicant.
Ms Yashashree Raut h/f Manisha Jagtap, for Respondent No.1 / CBI.
Ms Anagha A Deshmukh, APP, for the Respondent / State.
Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 17 January 2026
P.C.:
. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 tenders a copy of the judgment passed by the Special Court (CBI), Mumbai, dated 22 March 2026 and submits that applicant / original accused No.4 has been acquitted by the learned trial Court on 22 March 2016 and nothing survives in this revision application. The said copy of the judgment is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. In view of the above, the present revision application stands dismissed as infructuous.
(R.N. Laddha, J.)
Page 1 of 1
17 January 2026
Arun Meghraj Dagia
Union of India
R.N. Laddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
