Baban Bandu Solankar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15335 Bom

                                      {1}
                                                            crappeal510.21.odt


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 510 OF 2021

 Baban s/o Bandu Solankar                              Appellant

          Versus

 The State of Maharashtra & others                     Respondents


 Mr. N. B. Narwade, advocate for the appellant.
 Mr. R. D. Sanap, APP for the Respondent-State.


                                CORAM : V.K.JADHAV AND
                                        SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.

                               DATE    : 26th October, 2021.

 PC :

 1                Heard.



 2                Despite the order passed by this Court on 23.09.2021,

requesting the learned A.P.P. to take specifc instructions as to the

procedure prescribed for considering even the "no appeal

proposal", the learned A.P.P. seeks time.

3 On the last occasion, we have orally requested the

learned A.P.P. to bring to the notice of the Joint Secretary, Law &

Judiciary Department, Aurangabad, the view taken by the Division

{2} crappeal510.21.odt

Bench of this Court (Coram: B.R. Gavai & Shrihari P. Davare, JJ.)

in Criminal Appeal No.508/2012, by judgment dated 26.04.2012,

wherein, in para 11, the Division Bench has issued following

directions to the State Government:

"11 We can understand the State is fling the applications for seeking leave to appeal when cases are border line cases and there is some scope for interference for this Court. However, like in the present case when there is no material at all, still the application is preferred by the State for seeking leave to appeal. Apart from the fact that State is expected to be a model litigant, the expenses of fling such proceedings are borne from the public funds which is a tax payers' money. Merely because the money spent on such a litigation is from the public funds, cannot be a ground for fling the applications for seeking leave to appeal as a matter of routine. Not only that but the valuable time of the Court as well as the Public Prosecutors is wasted in such unnecessary exercise. As it is, the Courts are burdened with heavy pendency of matters. Such unwarranted challenges to fndings of acquittal, unnecessarily adds to the already heavily burdened Courts. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to issue following

{3} crappeal510.21.odt

directions to the State Government:

(i) After the judgment and orders are delivered by the learned trial Judges, the concerned APPs appearing in the trial Court shall personally go through the evidence and the judgment and after scrutiny thereof, if satisfed, that the view taken by the learned trial Court is either perverse or impossible, shall recommend fling of an application for leave to appeal.

(ii) On receipt of such proposals, the Secretary or the concerned Joint Secretary shall again verify the proposal and if it is found that the view taken by the trial Court is neither perverse nor impossible, shall decide not to challenge fndings of acquittal.

(iii) If the proposal is received by the offce of the Public Prosecutor in the High Court, the concerned Public Prosecutor to whom the fles are assigned, shall again go through the evidence on record and the judgment to fnd out as to whether the view taken by the trial Court is perverse or impossible. If the learned APP is of the view that the view taken by the learned trial Court is a possible view and it is neither impossible nor perverse view, it shall give its opinion in writing to the Secretary or the concerned Joint Secretary of Law and Judiciary Department.

(iv) After the receipt of the opinion of the learned APP that the case of acquittal is not a ft case to challenge, the Secretary or the concerned Joint Secretary shall re- examine the matter and decide as to whether the

{4} crappeal510.21.odt

application for leave to appeal should be fled or not. However, if the offcer disagrees with the opinion of the APP and decides to grant sanction to fle an application for leave to appeal, it shall record reasons as to why it disagrees with the opinion of the learned A.P.P."

4 We request the learned A.P.P. to fle affdavit-in-reply of

the Joint Secretary, Law & Judiciary Department, Aurangabad, till

the next date of hearing without fail.

5. Stand over to 15th November, 2021.

  (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)                              (V.K.JADHAV)
      JUDGE                                             JUDGE

 adb