Parshuram Premchand Kevat vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 8823 Bom

                                                                                   7. cri wp 4439-17.doc


RMA      
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4439 OF 2017


            Parshuram Premchand Kevat                                     .. Petitioner

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra                                      .. Respondent

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
            Mr. Arfan Sait      APP for the State
                                                   ...................



                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                              M.S. KARNIK, JJ.

DATE : NOVEMBER 17, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

1. Heard both sides.

2. By Judgment & Order dated 26.4.2017 passed by the

learned NDPS Special Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court,

Greater Mumbai in NDPS Special Case No. 145 of 2013, the

petitioner has been convicted under Section 8(c) r/w. 20(b)

(ii)(B)of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act

and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 2

7. cri wp 4439-17.doc

years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,00/-, in default to suffer S.I.

for 6 months. The prayer of the petitioner in this petition is

that the sentence of imprisonment and fine amount be

reduced.

3. As far as the prayer of the petitioner is concerned, we

would like to state that against the very same judgment and

order convicting and sentencing the petitioner, the petitioner

has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 588 of 2017 which is

pending before this Court. The issue of conviction and

sentence would be decided in the said appeal, hence, it is

not possible for us to consider the prayer of the petitioner in

the present petition, hence, Rule is discharged.

[ M.S. KARNIK, J ]                    [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                         2 of 2