Gowardhan S/O Haridhan Rathod vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1633 Bom

                                                     1
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.111 OF 2016.


         APPLICANT:              Gowardhan Haridhan Rathod,
                                 aged about 39 years, Occu: Agrist.
                                 R/o Village Somnath Nagar, Tq.
                                 Manora, Distt.Washim, Nagpur.

                                                   : VERSUS :

         NON-APPLICANT:     State of Maharashtra,
                            through Police Station Officer,
                            Police Station - Manora, Distt.Washim.

         =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
         Mr. A.A.Gupta, Advocate for the applicant.
         Mr.H.D. Dubey, Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant/State.
         Mr.S.V.Sirpurkar, Advocate for the Intervenor.
         =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
                                               CORAM:     P.N.DESHMUKH, J.

                                               DATED :     11th APRIL, 2017.


         ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel of

parties.

2. By this Criminal Revision Application, challenge is

made to order dated 17th June, 2016 passed by Additional

Sessions Judge, Mangrulpir in Sessions Trial No.44 of 2014, vide

which accused no.4 Dnyaneshwar Babusing Rathod was granted

pardon which, according to applicant, was prima facie erroneous

and unsustainable in law. As such, by filing present proceedings

said order is prayed to be quashed.

3. Learned Counsel Shri S.V.Sirpurkar appearing for

Intervenor makes a statement at bar that said accused no.4

Dnyaneshwar Rathod had thereafter placed on record an

application, Exh.359, in the Sessions case seeking withdrawal of

pardon granted to him. Copy of said application is taken on

record and marked 'X' for identification. It appears that inspite of

obtaining say of prosecution, said application is pending before

the learned trial Court as according to the say of prosecution,

present Revision is stated to be pending before this Court and

thus appropriate orders are solicited as per law.

4, Considering statement made at bar by learned counsel

for the Intervenor, as above, this Criminal Revision Application

appears to be rendered infructuous and learned trial Judge shall

decide application, Exh.359 according to law.

5. In that view of the matter, Criminal Revision is

dismissed.

Needless to say that in the event Application, Exh.359

is decided against accused no.2 Dnyaneshwar, the applicant shall

be at liberty to take recourse to remedy available in law.

R. and P. be sent back to the learned Trial Court

forthwith.

JUDGE.

chute