Sunday, 03, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Laxman S/O. Sudam Toge vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 15381 Bom

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 15381 Bom
Judgement Date : 26 October, 2021

Bombay High Court
Laxman S/O. Sudam Toge vs The State Of Maharashtra on 26 October, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
                                      {1}
                                                           crappln233621.odt


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2336 OF 2021 IN
                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 519 OF 2018

 Laxman s/o Sudam Toge                                Applicant

          Versus

 The State of Maharashtra                             Respondent


 Mr. N. R. Thorat, advocate for the applicant.
 Mr. R. V. Dasalkar, APP for the Respondent-State.


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

DATE : 26th October, 2021.

PC :

1. By the judgment and order of conviction, dated

18th June, 2018, in Special (POCSO) Case No. 41 OF 2017, the

Special Judge, Beed, has convicted the appellant-accused for the

offence punishable under Section 376 (2 )(f) of the Indian Penal

Code and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for twelve years and to pay

fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to suffer further R.I. for three

months. In view of the same, though the applicant-appellant is

found guilty for the offence under Sections 4 & 8 of the Protection

of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the learned trial Judge

has not passed separate sentence.

{2} crappln233621.odt

2. On last occasion, the learned A.P.P. has raised

preliminary objection that the appeal should be heard by the

learned Single Judge of this Court in terms of Chapter I Rule 2 of

the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. By an order

dated 22nd October, 2021, we have directed the Registrar (Judicial)

of this Court to submit the report as to whether the appeal would

lie before the learned Single Judge of this Court or otherwise.

3. The learned A.P.P. and the learned Counsel for the

appellant also sought time.

4. Today, the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court has

submitted the report. The learned A.P.P. has also placed reliance

on the case of Bankim Rasiklal Shah Vs. NCB, Ahmedabad &

others, (Criminal Appeal No.586/2005), wherein the Division

Bench of this Court (Coram: Smt. V.K.Tahilramana, Acting CJ &

Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.), interpreted rule 2 (II) (a) of

Chapter I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960.

5. In the case cited, the appellant has been convicted

under Section 20(b) (ii) (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

{3} crappln233621.odt

Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for fourteen

years and to pay fine of Rs. Two lakhs, in default, to suffer R.I. for

two years. The Division Bench, in para nos.4 & 5 of the judgment,

made the following observations:

"4. It is seen that Rule 2 (II) (a) of Chapter I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 as amended by Maharashtra Act No. XXVII of 2008, clearly states as under:

"2. Matters disposed of by a Single Judge - Save as otherwise expressly provided by these rules, a Single Judge may dispose of the following matters :-

                      I.        Civil - ............
                      II.       Criminal -
                      (a)       Appeals against convictions, except in which

the sentence of death or imprisonment for life has been passed, appeals against acquittals wherein the offence with which the accused was charged is one punishable on conviction with a sentence of fine only or with a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding ten years or with such imprisonment and fine, and appeals under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, revision applications and Court notices for enhancement of sentence for offences punishable on conviction with sentence of fine only or with sentence of imprisonment not exceeding ten years or with such imprisonment and fine."

5. In view of above noted rules, this matter

{4} crappln233621.odt

would clearly lie before a Single Judge, hence office to take necessary steps."

6. Thus, considering the view taken by the Division

Bench of this Court interpreting rule 2 (II) (a) of Chapter I of the

Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, and also the

report of the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, referring the same

judgment in the report, this matter would lie before the learned

Single Judge of this Court.

7. Office to take necessary steps. Remove from the

board.




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

 adb





 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter