Bombay High Court
Sridhar Narayan Kalal vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. ... on 8 January, 2018
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
Judgment
revn157.17 12
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.157 OF 2017
Sridhar Narayan Kalal,
Aged about 28 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o Mouza - Bhilgaon,
Tahsil and District Nagpur. ..... Applicant.
:: VERSUS ::
State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Padoli Police Station, District
Chandrapur. ..... Non-applicant.
================================================================
Shri D.S. Jagyasi, Counsel for the applicant.
Shri T.A. Mirza, Addl.P.P. for the State.
================================================================
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : JANUARY 8, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
.....2/-
::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 01:59:16 :::
Judgment
revn157.17 12
2
finally by consent of learned counsel Shri D.S. Jagyasi for the
applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri T.A.
Mirza for the State.
2. The applicant was arrested in connection with
Crime No.87 of 2016 registered with Police Station Padoli,
District Chandrapur for the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 395, 397, and 353 of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 64(a), 65, 81, and 83 of the Bombay
Prohibition Act. The applicant was released on bail by
learned Additional Sessions Judge at Chandrapur.
3. The charges are framed against the applicant for
the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 395,
397, and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 64(a), 65,
81, and 83 of the Bombay Prohibition Act.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri T.A.
.....3/-
::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 01:59:16 :::
Judgment
revn157.17 12
3
Mirza for the State fairly makes a statement that on the day of
incident, the applicant was not present on the spot and that
he was present at Nagpur. There is nothing on record,
therefore, to show the involvement of the applicant insofar as
commission of offence punishable under the Indian Penal
Code is concerned.
5. In view of this particular statement made by
learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri T.A. Mirza for the
State, learned Judge of the Court below has committed a
wrong in framing the charges against the present applicant
for the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code is
concerned.
6. The charges framed against the applicant in
respect of offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code
are hereby set aside.
.....4/-
::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 01:59:16 :::
Judgment
revn157.17 12
4
7. Insofar as the charges against the applicant under
the Bombay Prohibition Act are concerned, after having
heard the submissions of learned counsel Shri D.S. Jagyasi for
the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri
T.A. Mirza for the State, it is clear that it requires evaluation
of the evidence. At this stage, the applicant cannot be
discharged since there is a prima facie material in that
behalf. Hence, to that extent, the application is rejected.
Consequently, I pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) Rule is made absolute insofar as charges
framed against the applicant for the offence
punishable under the Indian Penal Code are
concerned and those are quashed and set aside.
(ii) Insofar as charges framed against the
.....5/-
Judgment
revn157.17 12
applicant for the offence punishable under the
Bombay Prohibition Act stand confirmed and the
prosecution to prove those charges during the
course of the Trial.
(iii) The criminal revision application is partly
allowed and disposed of.
JUDGE
!! BRW !!
...../-
