Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Vaidyanath Siddheshwar Mukhiya ... on 27 September, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
2023:BHC-AS:28539
Gokhale 1 of 4 30-revn-215-23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 215 OF 2023
The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant.
Versus
Vaidyanath Siddheshwar Mukhiya & Anr. ..Respondents
__________
Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for State/Applicant.
Ms. Anima Mishra a/w. S.T.Pandey a/w. Arvind Singh a/w. Ritu
Singh a/w. Kajal Upadhyay a/w. Anuj Singh for Respondents.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 27 SEPTEMBER 2023
PC :
1. The State has filed the present criminal revision
application for restoration of Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2019 on
the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane.
2. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the original accused
Nos.1 and 2 in R.C.C.No.2652 of 2018 before the 3 rd J.M.F.C., 2nd
Court, Thane. At the end of the trial, both these respondents were
acquitted vide Judgment and order dated 02.08.2019. The case
arose out of an F.I.R. lodged at Vartaknagar police station vide
C.R.No. I 187 of 2018, under sections 452, 354, 323, 504, 506(2),
427 r/w. 34 of the I.P.C.
::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2023 22:31:51 :::
2 of 4 30-revn-215-23
3. The State of Maharashtra challenged the Judgment and
order of acquittal by filing Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2019 before
the Court of Sessions at Thane.
4. From the record, it appears that the said Appeal was
dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, vide his order
dated 26.04.2022. It was observed that the Appellant's advocate
were absent, paper book charges were not paid during the
previous two years and, therefore the proceedings stood dismissed
for want of prosecution.
5. The Applicant/State of Maharashtra filed Criminal M.A.
(St) No.7193 of 2022 for setting aside that order. That application
was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane vide his
order dated 13.12.2022 on the ground that, such application for
restoration was not maintainable.
6. Both these orders are challenged in the present revision
application.
7. Heard Shri. A. R. Patil, learned APP for the
State/Applicant and Ms. Anima Mishra, learned counsel for the
::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2023 22:31:51 :::
3 of 4 30-revn-215-23
Respondents.
8. Learned APP pointed out that the second impugned
order dated 13.12.2022 itself shows that the paper-book charges
were deposited on 10.12.2021 i.e. much prior to the first
impugned order dated 26.04.2022. Learned APP relied on a copy
of that receipt dated 10.12.2021 which is annexed at Exhibit-D to
this revision application. Therefore, on the first ground of non
payment of paper-book charges, it is clear that the observations of
the learned Additional Sessions Judge were not factually correct. It
is possible that, this fact was not brought to his notice. The second
ground for dismissal was absence of learned APP. There was no
adjudication on merits of the matter.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1
and 2 submitted that, they are acquitted by a competent court.
They are suffering for no fault of their own. She submitted that,
they are facing difficulty in securing jobs because the police are not
giving them clearance certificate.
10. I have considered these submissions. As is discussed
::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2023 22:31:51 :::
4 of 4 30-revn-215-23
above, the order of dismissal was passed on factually incorrect
reasoning and secondly the merits of the matter were not
considered, though, the proceedings were in the nature of criminal
appeal. On these both counts, the impugned order of dismissing
the Appeal is required to be set aside. At the same time, grievance
of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 will also have to be taken into
consideration.
11. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
i) The Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2019 is restored
to the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Thane.
ii) The Appeal shall be decided expeditiously and, as
far as possible, within a period of three months
from today.
iii) The Criminal Revision Application is disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
