Rajendra Laxman Mudliyar vs The State Of Maharashtra
2024 Latest Caselaw 22134 Bom

Bombay High Court

Rajendra Laxman Mudliyar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 August, 2024

Author: Sarang V. Kotwal

Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal

 2024:BHC-AS:30624



                        Gokhale                             1 of 3                            2-apeal-790-24


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 790 OF 2024

                      Rajendra Laxman Mudliyar                                        ..Appellant
                            Versus
                      State of Maharashtra                                            ..Respondent

                                                   __________
                      Mr. Yogendra M. Koli a/w. Praful Valvi i/b. Sana Abdul Mubeen for
                      Appellant.
                      Mr. Vinit A. Kulkarni, APP for State/Respondent.
                                                   __________

                                                    CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE : 1 AUGUST 2024 PC :

1. This Appeal arises out of the Judgment and order passed

by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions

Case No.488 of 2016. The Appellant was convicted for commission

of offence punishable U/s.370(1) of the I.P.C. and was sentenced

to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in

default to suffer S.I. for one month. There was one more accused

in this case i.e. Rabiya Kalil Shaikh. She had challenged the same

impugned Judgment and order separately vide Criminal Appeal

No.1458 of 2018. The said Appeal was decided along with the

Criminal Appeal No.520 of 2018 preferred by the State of Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD BHASKAR BHASKAR GOKHALE GOKHALE Date:

2024.08.02 14:46:42 +0530

2 of 3 2-apeal-790-24

Maharashtra against both the accused for enhancement of the

sentence. Both these Appeals were decided and disposed of vide

the order dated 26.09.2022. In Clause-3 of the said Judgment and

order dated 26.09.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1458 of

2018, it was observed that the present Appellant-accused No.2

Rajendra Mudliyar had not preferred any Appeal challenging his

conviction, as both the accused were similarly placed and, since, it

was held that the offence under Section 370 of the I.P.C. was not

made out and the conviction and sentence recorded against the

present appellant-accused No.2 was also set aside.

2. When both these Appeals were decided, it was not

brought to the notice of the Court that the present Appeal was

preferred by the Accused No.2 Rajendra Mudliyar and it was

pending.

3. Now, the Registry has placed this Appeal before the

Court. There is a remark that, while scrutinizing the Appeals, it

was found that the present Criminal Appeal No.790 of 2024

(Criminal Appeal (Stamp) No.3126 of 2020) had remained to be

3 of 3 2-apeal-790-24

tagged with the aforementioned connected Appeals. The remark

further shows that, since the conviction and sentence recorded

against the Accused no.2 i.e. the present Appellant Rajendra

Mudliyar was set aside, the present Appeal has become

infructuous.

4. Considering this situation, the office remark and the

Judgment and order dated 26.09.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal

No.1458 of 2018, this present Appeal No.790 of 2024 has become

infructuous and it is disposed of as having rendered infructuous.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)