Narayan Ramchandra Mali v. Harischandra Bandu Tokade And ORS.

14. REVN 383 of 2003.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVISION APPLICATION NO. 383 OF 2003 Narayan Ramchandra Mali ...Applicant vs.

Harischandra Bandu Tokade and Ors.

...Respondents

***** Ms. Shilpa S. Pawar Appointed Advocate for the Applicant Mr. Sudip Mallick a/w Ms.

Farzana Khan i/by Mr. Harshad E. Palwe Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 Mr. A. D. Kamkhedkar APP for the Respondent-State ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.

DATE : 04th APRIL 2024 P. C. :- 1.

Heard learned Advocate Ms. Pawar appointed for the Applicantfirst informant, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 and learned APP.

2.

Read the Order dated 14/03/2024. Learned APP Shri Kamkhedkar has clarified that State has not preferred an appeal against judgment of the acquittal. This is submitted on the basis of the record which is available with the Office of the Public Prosecutor and with all by SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR Date:

2024.04.10 19:38:28 +0530 SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR Seema 1/2

14. REVN 383 of 2003.doc his persuasion, he could trace it out.

3.

In the year 2003, remedy of an appeal to the first informant was not available and that is why this revision is filed. As submitted on 14/03/2024, by learned Advocate for the Applicant that Applicant wants to withdraw the revision. Today copy of the letter sent by the Applicant through Whats app addressed to learned Advocate is taken on record. It is not legible, but it is clear that he does not want to prosecute the revision. It is taken on record and marked as 'AnnexureX'. 4.

In view of that the revision is disposed of as not pressed .

5.

Learned appointed Advocate Ms. Pawar be paid fees as per the Rules.

[S. M. MODAK, J.] Seema 2/2