Bombay High Court
Mohammad Irshad Mohammad Iqbal vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 29 April, 2021
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, B. U. Debadwar
447.21crwp
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
912 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.447 OF 2021
MOHAMMAD IRSHAD MOHAMMAD IQBAL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Mr G. A. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner;
Mr S. D. Ghayal, A.P.P. for respondents
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
AND
B. U. DEBADWAR, JJ.
DATE : 29th April, 2021
PER COURT:
1. We have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the
learned Prosecutor on behalf of the respondents. Both intend to cite
case law.
2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits on the basis of
the pleadings in paragraph 5 at page 5 of the petition that the petitioner
has suffered four trials and has been convicted in four independent
criminal cases. He, however, admits that in R.C.C. No.159/2010
before the Trial Court, the cause title indicates State Vs. Mohd. Irshad
s/o Mohd. Iqbal and in the other three cases i.e. R.C.C. No.184/2010,
R.C.C. No.39/2010 and R.C.C. No.205/2009, the cause title indicates
State Vs. Syed Irshad s/o Sayed Iqbal. He submits that in R.C.C.
No.159/2010, the same petitioner has been convicted wrongly under
447.21crwp
the name Mohd. Irshad s/o Mohd. Iqbal and it should be Syed Irshad
s/o Syed Iqbal.
3. The learned Prosecutor submits that, on the basis of oral
submissions, this Court in it's writ jurisdiction, cannot conclude that
Mohd. Irshad s/o Mohd. Iqbal is the same person Syed Irshad s/o Syed
Iqbal.
4. We find that whether Mohd. Irshad s/o Mohd. Iqbal is the same
person Syed Irshad s/o Syed Iqbal or not, cannot be decided by this
Court while exercising writ jurisdiction and that too, when there is no
specific prayer to this extent. Even if the petitioner would have so
prayed in this petition, we would not have been able to exercise our
jurisdiction since in R.C.C. No.159/2010, the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Bhokar, vide it's judgment dated 27/04/2011, in
the matter of State Vs. Mohd. Irshad s/o Mohd. Iqbal, has convicted
Mohd. Irshad s/o Mohd. Iqbal. The possibility that these are two
different persons, cannot be ruled out.
5. We, therefore, are of the view that the petitioner ought to move
the learned Trial Court in R.C.C. No.159/2010 for correction on the
basis of the record available with the Court in the said case. If the
investigation papers indicate that the accused is Mohd. Irshal s/o
447.21crwp
Mohd. Iqbal, the Trial Court would not be able to correct name as it
could be two different persons with the two independent names who
have been convicted.
6. In this circumstances, we are permitting the petitioner to
approach the learned Trial Court in R.C.C. No.159/2010 to make a
request that Mohd. Irshad s/o Mohd. Iqbal is the same person Syed
Irshad s/o Syed Iqbal. Needless to state, the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Bhokar shall be extremely cautious while
dealing with such a request and shall peruse the entire record and
proceeding and the case diary of the concerned police station before
taking any decision. So also, the trial Court would issue notice to the
Investigating Officer and after considering the case diary and the
investigation papers, pass an order as it deems legally appropriate.
7. In the event, such an application is filed by the present petitioner
before the Trial Court, it shall be an endevour of the Trial Court to
decide the said issue expeditiously and preferably within three months,
provided there are no lock-down restrictions.
8. We grant liberty to the petitioner to circulate this petition only
after the above issue is settled.
(B. U. DEBADWAR, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
sjk
