Bombay High CourtAPEAL/351/2002rejected

State Of Maharashtra v. Shri Shobhraj Valumal Lakhani And Another

2017-09-06Hon'Ble Shri Justice Rohit Baban Deo2 pages

1 apeal351.02

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 351 OF 2002 (State of Maharashtra, through S.M. Choudhari, Food Inspector, Amravati ..vs.. Shri Shobhraj Valumal Lakhani and another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri N.B. Jawade, Addl.P.P. for the appellant, Shri Pankaj Navlani, Advocate for respondent 2. CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO, J.

DATED : 06-09-2017 When the appeal was listed on 31-8-2017, the learned Counsel for respondent No.2 Shri Pankaj Navlani made a statement that respondent 2 had expired. In view of the said statement, this Court directed that the appeal shall stand abated as regards respondent 2. However, the learned Counsel Shri Pankaj Navlani informs the Court today that it is not respondent 2 but respondent 1 who has expired and a death certificate evidencing the death of respondent 1 is also filed on record.

The statement is accepted. The order of abatement as against respondent 2 is recalled. Instead it is directed that the appeal shall stand abated as against respondent 1.

The learned Counsel Shri Pankaj Navlani also makes a statement that in the praecipe dated 29-8-2017 it is incorrectly mentioned that it is filed by Counsel for respondent 1, the same be corrected to read Counsel for

2 apeal351.02 respondent 2.

Prayer is allowed. The correction in the praecipe be carried out immediately.

JUDGE adgokar