Bombay High Court
Raju Sarjerao Paikrao vs Suresh Laxman Patekar And Another on 20 August, 2022
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi, Rajesh S. Patil
cria492.22
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
930 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.492 OF 2022
IN APEAL/108/2022 WITH APEAL/108/2022 WITH
APEAL/126/2022 WITH APPLN/1055/2022 IN
APPLN/1054/2022 WITH APPLN/592/2022 IN
APEAL/126/2022 WITH APPLN/1054/2022 IN
APEAL/223/2022 WITH APPLN/1053/2022 IN
APPLN/592/2022 WITH APEAL/223/2022 WITH
APPLN/1052/2022 IN APPLN/492/2022
SURESH LAXMAN PATEKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Mr.Rohit Patwardhan Advocate h/f. Mr. Satej S. Jadhav
Advocate for Applicant.
Mr.A.M. Phule, A.P.P. for Resp. No.1.
Mr.Kedar S. Warad Advocate h/f. Mr. K.P. Rodge Advocate
for applicant in Cri. Application Nos.1052 of 2022, 1053 of
2022 and 1055 of 2022.
...
CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 20th AUGUST, 2022
ORDER :
1. Learned Advocate Mr. Warad holding for learned Advocate
Mr. Rodge submits that Mr. Rodge, who is appearing for the
original informant and has filed Application to assist the learned
cria492.22
APP, has a matter at Mumbai before the Principal Seat at
Bombay and therefore, on that ground he seeks accommodation.
2. At the outset it is to be noted that today the matter is for
considering Criminal Applications which have been filed for
suspension of substantive sentence imposed on the applicants /
appellants. It is absolutely not necessary that the informant or
the victim should be heard, as, whether to suspend the
sentence during the pendency of the appeal is within the
prerogative of the Court. What could be gathered from his
Application for assist to APP i.e. Criminal Application No.1052 of
2022, that various non cognizable offences have been filed
against wife of respondent No.1 in the Application i.e. Suresh
Lamxan Patekar and it appears that those are subsequent to the
date of impugned Judgment and order. Under such circumstance,
even if this Court decides to allow the informant at this stage to
assist, learned Advocate on the ground that he is busy in
another Court, cannot seek the adjournment. He cannot give
preference to one matter and it is stated that he has filed leave
note. In fact the leave notes of the Advocates are not binding on
the Courts and it depends upon the reason that has been given
in the leave application. For remaining present before another
cria492.22
Court, leave cannot be sought from other Court. This is an
unnecessary adjournment. Now, since Advocate Mr. Rodge wants
to address the Court on the adjourned date, he should deposit
the cost of Rs.1,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Sub
Committee, Aurangabad on or before 26th August 2022.
3. Place the matter for further consideration on 12 th
September 2022. It is made clear that if learned Advocate Rodge
remains absent on that date, no opportunity will be given to the
informant to make submissions.
[ RAJESH S. PATIL ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
asb/AUG22
