Sau. Maya Gajanan Belge vs Anil Kashinath Kale And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 6429 Bom

                                                          1                             4.APEAL.79-2020.odt




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 79 OF 2020
                                     ( Sau. Maya Gajanan Belge
                                                 Vs.
                                     Anil Kashinath Kale & Anr. )

Office Notes, Office Memoranda                          Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders     or    directions and
Registrar's orders


                                  Mr. P.S. Gawai, Advocate for the Appellant.
                                  Mr. Amit R. Chutke, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.2/State.



                                  CORAM:        AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 7th JULY, 2022.

Heard Mr. Gawai, learned counsel for the appellant, who contends, that the judgment of the trial Court, whereby the respondent No.1 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 448 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code, was passed in exercise of the powers under Section 255 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the evidence of as many as 6 witnesses have been recorded, as it was a summons trial (page 55). It is contended, that the learned appellate Court only on the sole ground, that the proceedings were commenced under Chapter XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure and were tried in a summary manner, since the evidence was not recorded by a single Magistrate but by various persons without treating the trial as denovo, the judgment passed by the Magistrate could not be sustained and has quashed and set aside the same. It is 2 4.APEAL.79-2020.odt

contended, that though the trial was summary in nature under chapter XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, however under Section 262 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the procedure adopted was that of a summons trial, and therefore, the judgment of the Magistrate could not have been set aside on the ground that denovo trial was to be conducted every time the Magistrate is changed during the denovo trial.

2. Mr. Chutke, learned APP for the respondent/State, seeks time, considering which, list the matter on 14.07.2022.

JUDGE

SD. Bhimte

Signed By:SHRIKANT DAMODHAR BHIMTE

Signing Date:07.07.2022 17:26