Sheshrao Govindarao Rakhunde vs State Of Maha
2016 Latest Caselaw 4975 Bom

                                                                      130.04crrvn
                                       (1)




                                                                       
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                                                 




                                               
          CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 130 OF 2004 

     Shri. Sheshrao s/o Govindarao Rakhunde,
     Age: 52 years, Occu: Agriculture,




                                              
     R/o. Digras, Tq. Hingoli,
     Dist. Hingoli                       ..APPLICANT

              VERSUS




                                     
     The State of Maharashtra                           ..RESPONDENT
                             
                               WITH
          CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 131 OF 2004 
                            
     Shri. Uttamrao s/o Rambhaji 
     @ Sambhaji Wabale,
     Age: 43 years, Occu: Agriculture,
     R/o. Umara, Tq. Hingoli,
      


     Dist. Hingoli                                      ..APPLICANT
   



              VERSUS

     The State of Maharashtra                           ..RESPONDENT





     Mr P.B. Patil, Advocate for applicants;
     Mr R.V. Dasalkar, A.P.P. for respondent 





                             CORAM :  N.W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE : 25th August, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

By an order dated 18th February, 2004

passed below Exhibit Nos. 110 and 112 in Sessions

130.04crrvn

Case No. 14 of 2000 and below Exhibit Nos. 132 and

135 in Sessions Case No. 31 of 2001, learned

Sessions Judge, Hingoli has refused to withdraw the

prosecution pursuant to the provisions of Section

321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As such,

present criminal revision applications.

2.

It is required to be noted from the record

that one Sayyed Kamroddin Shaikh Isakh, who was

working as Conductor with the State Transport

Corporation at Amravati S.T. Depot, lodged

complaint on 10th December, 1986 alleging that bus

on which he was performing his duty was set on fire

and collection of cash from the passengers was

sought to be taken away resulting into Crime No.73

of 1986 for the offence punishable under Sections

307, 427, 437, 353, 337, 147, 148, 149 of the

Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the

Bombay Police Act in Criminal Revision Application

No. 130 of 2004 and Crime No. 72 of 1986 was

registered pursuant to the complaint lodged by

Circle Police Inspector, Kalamnuri, for then

130.04crrvn

offence punishable under Sections 307, 435, 436,

332, 337, 341, 342, 427, 353, 337, 147, 148, 149 of

the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the

Bombay Police Act and under Section 25 of the Arms

Act in Criminal Application No. 131 of 2004.

3. The State Government, Home Department,

vide communication dated 23rd January, 2003 in

Criminal Revision Application No.130 of 2004 and

dated 31st July, 2003 in Criminal Application No.

131 of 2004, has informed District Magistrate,

Hingoli that the State, after consultation with the

Law and Judicial Department, has decided to

withdraw the prosecutions initiated against the

present applicants, pursuant to the provisions of

Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In

view of the said decision of the State Government,

the application came to be moved pursuant to the

instructions of the District Magistrate before

learned Sessions Court for withdrawing the

prosecution, which came to be rejected by the

impugned order.

130.04crrvn

4. Perused the contents of the order

impugned. It is required to be noted that the

alleged incident took place on 10th December, 1986

i.e. almost 30 years from today. Apart from above,

it is required to be noted that the State

Government has right to withdraw the prosecution in

view of provisions of Section 321 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure and accordingly, the State

Government has taken decision to order the

withdrawal of prosecution.

5. In my opinion, no purpose would be served

even by continuing the prosecution as has been

ordered by learned Sessions Judge, particularly

when the incident in question of 30 years old and

State Government has already ordered withdrawal of

the prosecution.

6. As such, both the criminal revision

applications need to be allowed. Hence, the

following order :-

130.04crrvn

The order dated 18th February, 2004 passed

below Exhibit Nos. 110 and 112 in Sessions Case No.

14 of 2000 and below Exhibit Nos. 132 and 135 in

Sessions Case No. 31 of 2001 by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Hingoli are hereby quashed and set

aside. The applications filed below Exhibit Nos.

110 and 112 in Sessions Case No. 14 of 2000 and

below Exhibit Nos. 132 and 135 in Sessions Case No.

31 of 2001 stand allowed.

7. Both the criminal revision applications

stand allowed in above terms.

(N.W. SAMBRE, J.)

Tupe