Bombay High Court
Subhash Bhagwan Latpate vs The State Of Maharashtra on 29 September, 2021
Bench: S. K. Shinde
Rane 1/5 REVN-151-2021-sr.15
29.9.2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 151 OF 2021
ALONGWITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.50 OF 2020
ALONGWITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 49 OF 2020
Shri. Subhah Bhagwan Latpate .....Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent
****
Mr. Vaibhav V. Ugle, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for State.
Coram : Sandeep K. Shinde, J.
29th September, 2021.
P.C. :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By
consent of the parties, taken up for hearing forthwith.
Rane 2/5 REVN-151-2021-sr.15
29.9.2021
2. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 8th
November, 2017 by which the Additional Sessions
Judge, Nasik declined to admit applicant's substantive
Criminal Appeal against the conviction, this Revision is
preferred.
3. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sinnar by
judgment and order dated 11th August, 2017 convicted
the applicant for the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 338 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code
with default stipulation and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence
punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian
Penal Code; seven days for the offence punishable
under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Also, he
has been convicted under Sections 184 and 177 of the
Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to pay fne of
Rs.1,000/- each and Rs.100/- respectively with the
default stipulation. This order was challenged in
Rane 3/5 REVN-151-2021-sr.15
29.9.2021
Criminal Appeal No.170/2017. The learned Appellate
Court declined to admit the appeal, for the reason that
the appellant and his advocate were absent on
12.9.2017, 20.9.2017, 12.10.2017 and on 8.11.2017,
when the Appeal was called out for hearing/admission
and ordered to close the proceedings.
4. This Court vide order dated 6th April, 2021
condoned the delay caused in preferring the Revision
against the impugned order subject to costs of
Rs.10,000/-. The applicant has deposited the costs and
as such the delay has been condoned.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and
learned Prosecutor for the State.
6. The Apex Court in the case of K.
Muruganandam and Ors V/s. State, represented by the
Rane 4/5 REVN-151-2021-sr.15
29.9.2021
Deputy Superintendent of Police & Anr. In Criminal
Appeal No.809/2021 vide order dated 12th August,
2021 has held as under :
"It is well settled that if the accused does not
appear through counsel appointed by him/her, the
Court is obliged to proceed with the hearing of the
case only after appointing an amicus curiae, but
cannot dismiss the appeal merely because of non-
representation or default of the advocate for the
accused (see Kabira vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
and Mohd. Sukur Ali vs. State of Assam)
7. In consideration of the facts of the case and
in view of the law laid down in the case of Kabira vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh, 1981 (Suppl) SCC 76 and Mohd.
Sukur Ali vs. State of Assam, (2011) 4 SCC 729), the
impugned order is set aside and Criminal Appeal No.
170/2017 is restored to the fle. As a consequence, the
applicant is relegated to the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Nasik. He shall appear before the said
Court on 18th October, 2021 whereafter the learned
Sessions Judge shall proceed to hear the applicant in
Rane 5/5 REVN-151-2021-sr.15
29.9.2021
Criminal Appeal No.170/2017 in accordance with law.
The Revision Application is allowed and disposed off in
aforesaid terms.
8. With disposal of the Revision Application, all
interim applications taken out therein become
infructous and do not survive. The same are disposed
NEETA off.
SHAILESH
SAWANT
Digitally signed by
NEETA SHAILESH
SAWANT
Date: 2021.09.30
18:25:40 +0530 (Sandeep K. Shinde, J.)
