Mohamed Arif Sagir Ahmed & Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 2662 Bom

    Mhi                                   1         WP-1001-2002.sxw


                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                                    
                     CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1001 OF 2002




                                                            
          1.     Shri Mohamed Arif Sagir Ahmed        )
                 Muslim, Adult.                       )




                                                           
          2.     Mohamed Firoz Sagir Ahmed,           )
                 Muslim, Adult.                       )
                 Both permanently residing at         )
                 Budharam Chawl, Kurla-Andheri        )




                                               
                 Road, Sakinaka, Mumba9-72.           )..        Petitioners
                       vs.          
          1.     The State of Maharashtra             )
          2.     Shri Kanchan Mirza Vishwakarma )
                                   
                 Hindu, Adult, residing at Room No.7, )
                 Budharam Chawl, Kurla-andheri        )
                 Road, Sakinaka, Mumbai-72.           )

          3.     Rajendra prasad Jayram Nisad,        )
            


                 Hindu, Adult, residi9ng at Room      )
                 No.5, Budharam Chawl,                )
         



                 Kurla-Andheri Road, Sakinaka,        )
                 Mumbai-72.                           )





          4.     Shri Rakesh Singh Thakur,            )
                 Hindu, Adult, residing at Room No.6, )
                 Budharam Chawl, Kurla-Andheri        )
                 Road, Sakinaka, Mumbai-72.           ).. Respondents





          None for the petitioners.
          Ms. A.A.Mane, APP, for the State.

                                          CORAM: SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.
                                          DATE : 9th June, 2016.

          JUDGMENT:

Mhi 2 WP-1001-2002.sxw

None present for the petitioners. Heard the learned APP and

perused the compilation of the Petition.

2. The petitioners herein have challenged the correctness and

validity of the order dated 24.7.2002 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge,

Greater Bombay in Criminal Misc. Application No.948 of 2002 filed in

Sessions case No.698 of 1993. The present petitioners happen to be the

accused in Sessions Case No.698 of 1993. Charge is framed against them

for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC

for having committed the homicidal death of one Mohamed Shafi on

16.2.1993. The substantive evidence of the witnesses was also recorded. It

appears that there was a cross-case, which was registered as C.R. no.71 of

1993 against the complainant/witnesses in C.R. No.70 of 1993. The

witnesses in Sessions Case No.698 of 1993 were being tried for the offence

punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and charge had

been framed against them for the alleged offence which was registered as

Sessions Case No.240 of 2002.

3. It appears from the records that there was a compromise

outside the Court between the present petitioners who were facing charge

Mhi 3 WP-1001-2002.sxw

under Section 302 of IPC and the accused who were facing the charge for

the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Sectiion 34 of IPC and

accordingly they have filed an application before the learned Sessions Court

seeking permission to compound the offence punishable under Section 302

read with Section 34 of IPC. That the offence punishable under Section

302 read with Section 34 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life or

death and Section 307 of IPC is punishable with rigorous imprisonment

which may extend to 10 years and fine. Both the offences are not included

in the list incorporated under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. The offence

punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code is

not against the deceased or a particular person, but it is an offence against

the State. It is a serious offence and could not have been compounded in

any way. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the application by

holding that both the offenes are not compoundable and that they are

serious offences. In vies of this, no interference can be called for. Hence,

this Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. Needless to say that the order granting interim relief dated

27.11.2002 granting interim relief dated 27.11.2002 in terms of prayer

clause `c' is hereby vacated. Rule is discharge. The Petition stands

Mhi 4 WP-1001-2002.sxw

disposed of as dismissed.

5. Office to communicate this order to the concerned court i.e.

Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay forthwith.

6. The learned Sessions Judge shall issue notices and bailable

warrants to the petitioners within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of this

order. In any case, it appears that the substantive evidence of the witnesses

is recorded even prior to the filing of the application seeking composition of

the offence and hence it would not be necessary for the learned Addl.

Sessions Judge to recall the witnesses who have been examined and cross-

examined. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge shall complete the trial in

Sessions Case No.698 of 1993 from the stage of recording of the statements

under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. or any other stage immediately after recording

of the substantive evidence of the witnesses.

Writ Petition stands disposed of as dismissed.

(SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)