Suryakant S/O Ramraoji Gade v. M/S. Chitamani Kotex, Proprietor, Shri. Swapnil Girdharrao Nagpure And Another

apl469.15 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.469 OF 2015 Suryakant s/o Ramraoji Gade ..vs..

M/s. Chintamani Kotex and anr ....................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ....................................................................................................................................................... Shri M.P. Kariya, Counsel for the Applicant.

Shri A.R. Patil, Counsel for Non-applicant No.1.

CORAM

: P.N. DESHMUKH, J.

DATED : APRIL 5, 2017.

Heard.

By consent of learned counsels for both the sides, application is disposed of finally.

This application takes exception to impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2014 dated 9.5.2014 whereby substantive sentence imposed upon nonapplicant No.1 is suspended, pending appeal. It is however contended that while suspending sentence, learned Sessions Judge had not passed any order for payment of amount of compensation or part thereof and, therefore, has contended that by allowing application, non-applicant No.1, during pendency of appeal, be directed to pay entire amount of compensation.

.....2/-

apl469.15 5 Learned counsel for non-applicant No.1 has not disputed fact, however has submitted that Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2014, pending on the file of learned First Appellate Court can be directed to be disposed of expeditiously, in view of the fact that sentence is suspended without direction to non-applicant No.1 to pay compensation amount or any part thereof.

In view of submissions advanced as aforesaid as well as facts involved in application as from impugned order it appears that no direction is issued to non-applicant No.1 to pay compensation amount or any part thereof, instead of giving direction to non-applicant No.1 to make any such payment pending appeal, since impugned order is passed on 9.5.2014, it is found appropriate to expedite appeal itself. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed:

Application is partly allowed with direction to the Appellate Court to decide Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2014 expeditiously and in any case within a period of three months from the date receipt of writ of this Court. Application stands disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE !! BRW !!

...../-