Bombay High CourtAPL/933/2015rejected

Ashok Dasu Awalwar And Others v. State Of Maharashtra, Through Dist. Govt. Pleader, Nagpur

2017-07-06Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.M. Deshpande2 pages

apl933.15 16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.933 OF 2015 Ashok Dasu Awalwar and ors ..vs..

State of Maharashtra, through District Government Pleader, Nagpur ....................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ....................................................................................................................................................... Shri H.M. Mohta, Counsel for the applicants.

Shri N.B. Jawade, Addl.P.P. for the State.

CORAM

: V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED : JULY 6, 2017.

Heard learned counsel Shri H.M. Mohta for the applicants.

This is an application challenging order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Akola dated 3.10.2015 in Other Misc. Criminal Application No.94 of 2015 by which learned Sessions Judge rejected application for transfer and to try Sessions Trial No.72 of 2009 and Sessions Trial No.107 of 2009 by the same Court. According to learned counsel for the applicants, the incident in question, which gives rise to Sessions Trial No.72 of 2009 and the incident that gives rise to Sessions Trial No.107 of 2009, is one and the same.

Perused the impugned order. Learned Sessions Judge, in my view, has correctly reached to the conclusion that .....2/-

apl933.15 16 the incidents, in these two Sessions Trials, are not part and parcel of the single incident but they are separate incidents and learned counsel has placed on record the copies of the entire charge-sheets of these two Sessions Trials. The spot panchanamas, in respect of place of occurrence that gives rise to Sessions Trial No.72 of 2009 and the place of occurrence in Sessions Trial No.107 of 2009, are altogether different and they are distinguished from each other.

No case is made out. The application is rejected. JUDGE !! BRW !!

...../-