Satish Mahadeo Bharate vs The State Of Maharashtra

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 6269 Bom
Judgement Date : 16 August, 2017

Bombay High Court
Satish Mahadeo Bharate vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 August, 2017
Bench: A.M. Badar
                                                                6-APPA-725-2017.doc


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.725 OF 2017
                                   IN
                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.69 OF 2010

 SATISH MAHADEO BHARATE                                 )...APPLICANT

          V/s.

 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                               )...RESPONDENT

 Mr.Shreeram Shirsat, Advocate for the Applicant.

 Ms.N.S.Jain, APP for the Respondent - State.

                               CORAM     :     A. M. BADAR, J.
                               DATE      :     16th AUGUST 2017

 P.C. :


 1                This is an application for early hearing moved by the 

respondent / original accused in an appeal whereby the State is challenging his acquittal for offences 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2 Heard the learned advocate appearing for the applicant / respondent no.2 / original accused. He submits that avk 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:04:12 ::: 6-APPA-725-2017.doc the respondent / original accused is retiring within a short span of time, and therefore, his appeal, which is of the year 2010, needs to be decided expeditiously.

3 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hussain vs. Union of India reported in 2017 (5) SCC 702 has directed this court to dispose of criminal appeal wherein accused persons are in jail for a period of five years or more. Several such appeals are pending for hearing before this court. In the category of appeal under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, appeals of the year 2001 and thereafter are still pending for disposal. The reason that respondent is retiring shortly cannot be a sufficient reason to grant out of turn hearing to this appeal.

4 The application is, therefore, rejected.



                                                    (A. M. BADAR, J.)




 avk                                                                            2/2




::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2017                        ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:04:12 :::