← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/1379/2016rejected disposed of at admission stageexcept appeal

Anil Ganjidhar Pawar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2016-10-21Hon'Ble Shri Justice Nitin W. Sambre4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1378 OF 2016 Shri Anil Ganjidhar Pawar ...

PETITIONER

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & others ...

RESPONDENTS .....

Petitioner present in person Shri N.T. Bhagat, A.P.P. for State .....

WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1379 OF 2016 Shri Anil Ganjidhar Pawar ...

PETITIONER

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & others ...

RESPONDENTS .....

Petitioner present in person Shri N.T. Bhagat, A.P.P. for State .....

WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1380 OF 2016

Shri Anil Ganjidhar Pawar ...

PETITIONER

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & others ...

RESPONDENTS .....

Petitioner present in person Shri N.T. Bhagat, A.P.P. for State .....

CORAM:

N.W. SAMBRE, J.

DATED:

21st October, 2016.

ORAL ORDER :

1.

The petitioner- party-in-person, makes a motion for withdrawal of Criminal Writ Petition Nos.1378/2016 and 1379/2016 with liberty to take recourse to the remedy of revision before the learned Sessions Judge. Criminal Writ Petition Nos.1378/2016 and 1379/2016 are disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

2.

So far as Criminal Writ Petition No.1380/2016 is concerned, it is brought to my notice that, in R.C.C. No.580/2014 (State Vs. Sudam & others) pending on the file of Judicial

Magistrate, First Class, Dhule, an application for issuance of witness summons vide Exh.137/D, which came to be rejected by the learned Magistrate, against which, it is informed that, the present petitioner has preferred Revision No.89/2016. According to the party-in-person, said revision is not decided by the learned Sessions Judge though the respondents thereto are served. He would invite my attention to the orders passed by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.547/2015, wherein the Apex Court has expedited the trial and directed the trial to be decided within 9 months from the date of communication of the order of the Apex Court. According to him, the Sessions Judge, instead of deciding the matter i.e. revision, is keeping the same in either position. 3.

Having considered the submissions made by the present petitioner, in my opinion, it will be appropriate to direct the learned Sessions Judge to decide the Revision within a period of one week from today. The time of one week is ordered by this Court looking to the fact that the Apex Court has already expedited the hearing of the Criminal Trial.

4.

In the meantime, it will be appropriate to direct the

learned trial Court not to proceed ahead with the trial for a period of one week.

5.

Criminal Writ Petition No.1380/2016 is disposed of with above directions.

(N.W. SAMBRE, J.) fmp/cwp1378.16