Sunanda Kishanrao Iingole v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

(1) Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 299 of 2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

Criminal Revision Application No. 299 of 2002 Sunanda w/o. Kishanrao Ingole, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. H.No. 1146, Sant Sena Nagar, Parbhani.

.. Revision Applicant.

versus

1. The State of Maharashtra.

2. Vijay s/o. Ramchandra Ubale, Aged : 50 years, Occupation : Contractor, R/o. Sant Sena Nagar, Parbhani.

.. Respondents.

.........................

Mr. A.G. Deshmukh, Advocate, holding for Mr. M.M. Patil (Beedkar), Advocate, for the revision applicant.

Mr. S.D. Kaldate, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent no.1 - State.

Mr. P.S. Paranjape, Advocate, for respondent no.2. ..........................

CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.

DATE : 26TH MARCH 2015

(2) Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 299 of 2002 PER COURT :

1.

The learned Counsel for the revision applicant has filed a Pursish contending therein, that at present he has no instructions from the revision applicant. That, he has sent a letter to the revision applicant which was returned unclaimed. Copy of the letter along with the envelope dated 10-2-2015 is also produced on record. The same is taken on record and marked as Article "X" for the purpose of identification. 2.

In view of this, it appears that the revision applicant is not interested in proceeding with the prosecution of the present Revision Application. Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, contemplates that it is not binding upon the court to consider the rights of the parties to be personally heard or by the pleader. 3.

In view of this, the Revision Application is dismissed for want of prosecution. The Revision Application stands disposed of accordingly. ( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV ) JUDGE ................................

puranik / CRIREVN299.02