Bombay High Court
Vishnu @ Tukya Haridas Dake vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 6 April, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
1 cran 968.22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
924 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.968 OF 2022
IN APEAL/425/2018
VISHNU @ TUKYA HARIDAS DAKE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. A. S. Kale i/by M/s. Talekar
and Associates
APP for Respondent-State : Mr. S. D. Ghayal
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV & SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
Dated: April 06, 2022
...
PER COURT :-
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the
applicant and the learned APP for the respondent State.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant informs that
copy of this application is served on the counsel
representing the present applicant in criminal appeal
no. 425 of 2018.
3. This application is fled in criminal appeal no.425
of 2018 by the appellant/original accused no.1 Vishnu @
Tukya Jaridas Dake. The learned Special Judge,
Osmanabad has convicted the present applicant and
aaa/-
2 cran 968.22.odt
three others for the offence punishable under sections
376 (D), 354 (C), 324 r/w 34 of IPC and further
convicted accused no.2 for the offence punishable under
Section 377 of IPC. The applicant herein, alongwith
other convicted accused persons, has assailed the said
judgment and order of conviction before this Court by
fling common appeal no.425 of 2018. Byy order dated
24.11.2018 this Court has admitted the appeal and now
the appeal is pending for fnal adjudication before this
Court.
4. The applicant, who is original appellant no.1 in the
aforesaid criminal appeal no.425 of 2018, wants to
engage a separate counsel through M/s. Talekar and
Associates Litigating Law Firm and accordingly, the
applicant has fled this application praying therein leave
to fle a separate appeal memo.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court at the Principal
Seat at Byombay in the case of Bhaskar Pandit Kadam
aaa/-
3 cran 968.22.odt
and others vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1984
(2) Bom.C.R. 769 wherein identical facts were involved.
In the aforesaid case, the Division Byench of this Court
has observed that if one of the appellant wants to
engage different advocate in an appeal which has
already been fled, an application for separating the
appeal of the person must necessarily be made and
separate appeal be registered by the offce. Then there
would be two appeals which can be supported by two
advocates. In para 35 of the said judgment, the Division
Byench of this Court has made the following
observations:-
"35 We deem it necessary to make some
observation for the guidance of the offce of
this court. In this appeal originally Mr. Dighe
had fled his appearance for both the
appellants. Some time later Mrs. Byhonsale
after obtaining the consent of Mr. Dighe, fled
her appearance only for appellant No.1. At the
time of fnal hearing naturally both the
advocates thought it ft to address the Court
on behalf of accused No.1. Such a procedure
aaa/-
4 cran 968.22.odt
is really not permissible. Whenever there is
one appeal irrespective of the number of the
appellant, only one Advocate can appear in
support of the appeal. Two Advocates cannot
appear for two different appellants in the same
appeal. However, if one of the appellants
wants to engage a different Advocate in an
appeal which has already been fled or
admitted, an application for separating the
appeal of that person must necessarily be
made. Once that application a separate appeal
be registered by the offce. Then there would
be two appeals which can be supported by two
different advocates appearing. This is not the
frst time that such a procedural irregularity
has been noticed by us. We, therefore, direct
that whenever in an appeal where there are
two or more appellants, subsequently an
Advocate fles appearance for only some of the
appellants, that appearance should to be
taken on record unless the Advocate also
make an application as indicated above for
separating the appeal of those appellants of
whom he intends to appear. When an
Advocate thus fles appearance for only some
of the appellants in any one particular appeal,
that appearance should be notifed for
aaa/-
5 cran 968.22.odt
objection and the course suggested above
should be followed."
6. In view of the observations made by this Court in
the aforesaid case and for the reasons stated in the
criminal application, the same is allowed in terms of
prayer clause "A". Criminal application is accordingly
disposed off.
( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. ) ( V.K. JADHAV, J. )
...
aaa/-
