Dnyaneshwar Ambadas Jadhav v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 920 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 725 OF 2022 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2021 DNYANESHWAR AMBADAS JADHAV

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Dhanraj Ingole h/f Mr. N. S. Ghanekar Advocate for the Appellants in Cri. Appeal No. 10/2021 : Mr. Virendra Tuwar h/f Mr. Satej S. Jadhav.

APP for Respondent-State : Mr. R. V. Dasalkar ...

CORAM : V.K. JADHAV & SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ. Dated: April 06, 2022 ...

PER COURT :- 1.

We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent State. 2.

The learned counsel for the applicant has given intimation of this application to the counsel appearing for the present appellant in criminal appeal no.10 of 2021. Learned counsel Mr. Virendra Tuwar, holding the brief of Advocate Mr. Satej Jadhav, on instructions, submits that he has no objection, if the application is allowed.

3.

This application is fled in criminal appeal no.10 of 2021 by the appellant/original accused no.4 Dnyaneshwar s/o Ambadas Jadhav. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basmathnagar has convicted the present applicant and three others for the offence punishable under section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant herein, alongwith other convicted accused persons, has assailed the said judgment and order of conviction before this Court by fling common appeal no.10 of 2021. By order dated 28.1.2021, this Court has admitted the appeal and now the appeal is pending for fnal adjudication before this Court.

4.

The applicant, who is original appellant no.4 in the aforesaid criminal appeal no.10 of 2021, wants to engage a separate counsel i.e. Mr. Nilesh S. Ghanekar and accordingly, the applicant has fled this application praying therein leave to fle a separate appeal memo.

5.

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court at the Principal Seat at Bombay in the case of Bhaskar Pandit Kadam and others vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1984

(2) Bom.C.R. 769 wherein identical facts were involved. In the aforesaid case, the Division Bench of this Court has observed that if one of the appellant wants to engage different advocate in an appeal which has already been fled, an application for separating the appeal of the person must necessarily be made and separate appeal be registered by the offce. Then there would be two appeals which can be supported by two advocates. In para 35 of the said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court has made the following observations:- "35 We deem it necessary to make some observation for the guidance of the offce of this court. In this appeal originally Mr. Dighe had fled his appearance for both the appellants. Some time later Mrs. Bhonsale after obtaining the consent of Mr. Dighe, fled

her appearance only for appellant No.1. At the time of fnal hearing naturally both the advocates thought it ft to address the Court on behalf of accused No.1. Such a procedure is really not permissible. Whenever there is one appeal irrespective of the number of the appellant, only one Advocate can appear in support of the appeal. Two Advocates cannot appear for two different appellants in the same appeal. However, if one of the appellants wants to engage a different Advocate in an appeal which has already been fled or admitted, an application for separating the appeal of that person must necessarily be made. Once that application a separate appeal be registered by the offce. Then there would be two appeals which can be supported by two different advocates appearing.

This is not the frst time that such a procedural irregularity has been noticed by us. We, therefore, direct that whenever in an appeal where there are two or more appellants, subsequently an Advocate fles appearance for only some of the appellants, that appearance should to be taken on record unless the Advocate also make an application as indicated above for separating the appeal of those appellants of whom he intends to appear.

Advocate thus fles appearance for only some of the appellants in any one particular appeal, that appearance should be notifed for objection and the course suggested above should be followed."

6.

In view of the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid case and for the reasons stated in the criminal application, the same is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). Criminal application is accordingly disposed off.

( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. ) ( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ...