Kanwardeepsingh Harbansingh Bedi v. The State of Maharashtra

This criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) Code Criminal Procedure, 1973, arises conviction sentence passed Sessions Case No. 79 1986 15/1/1988 learned Additional Sessions Judge - Sessions Court, Mumbai, thereby convicting appellant offences punishable Sections 302 381 I.P.C. causing murder colleagues i.e. Omprakash Dubey - Midshipman Hanumansingh Rathod - Seaman 24/11/1985 :2:

11.30 a.m. INS Ranjit. He sentenced suffer imprisonment offence punishable Section 302 RI The offence punishable Section 381 I.P.C. appellant during continued during pendency appeal well. Thus, during appeal 24 reasons remained pending before 21 years, though arises double murder of young sailors at the hands of one of their own colleagues. . The appellant was born in 1963 and completed graduation

1984. He commissioned Indian Navy in March 1984, joined Naval Academy Cochin August

1984. He completed basic training in December 1984 and joined INS Ranjit as a Midshipman in July 1985. . Ironically, the appeal is succeeding only on technical ground remand Sessions Case a trial, quashing setting impugned conviction sentence. This :3: situation arisen reason learned Metropolitan Magistrate 19th Court, Mumbai compliance mandatory provisions Criminal Courts Court Martial (Adjustment Jurisdiction) Rules, 1978 (the short) framed Central Government Section 475 Code Criminal Procedure, Rules

1973. We record anguish failure Special Public Prosecutor defence counsel conducted before Sessions Court evident appeared Rules mandatory procedure followed thereunder learned Metropolitan Magistrate before committing Sessions Court Section 209 Cr.P.C. It jurisdiction raised before learned Additional Sessions Judge manner raised before required decide preliminary jurisdiction following of Moly anr. vs. State Kerala [(2004) [(2004) [(2004) 4 4 4 SCC SCC SCC 584] 584] 584] - Delhi Special Police Establishment, New Delhi vs. Lt. Col. Loraiya [AIR [AIR [AIR 1972 1972 1972 SC SC SC 2548], 2548] 2548] Superintendent S.K. :4: Rememberancer Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Ranjan Roy Choudhury anr. [1986 [1986 [1986 (Supp) (Supp) (Supp) SCC SCC SCC Usha 190] 190] 190] and Union of India, through Major General H.C. Pathak [(1987) 3 SCC 490]. vs. Major S.K. Sharma [(1987) 3 SCC 490] [(1987) 3 SCC 490]

. The prosecution case unfolds thus, From 20/11/1985 onwards the Naval exercises progress INS Ranjit participated exercises. On 24/11/1985 INS Ranjit harboured Mumbai Port accused INS The deceased Naval Ranjit during exercise called "Barracuda operation terminated 24/11/1985 II".

11.15 a.m. Commander Dhamdhere - Lt. PW 1 Commanding Officer Ship seniors present Ship. The Commanding Officer accused, deceased Omprakash Dubey, Lt. Nikula, Lt. Commander Palsule 2-3 officers having INS Ranjit between 11 a.m.

11.15 a.m. during time, Commanding Officer received a message exercise terminated message received :5: Duty Signal Man. The Commanding Officer, therefore, instructed Omprakash Dubey (D1 short) sentries muster them. On midshipmen, sentries provided 9 carbine (pistols) magazines. Each sentry rotation exchange weapons change duty. The accused Omprakash Dubey there. At

11.30 a.m. Duty Officer Dhamdhere Nikula gangway muster sentries walking towards gangway,

accused holding a 9 carbine against Midshipman Omprakash a burst. Midshipman Ravi Shankaran gangway - a PW 9 proceeding towards little Dhamdhere turned back, pushed towards room. Dhamdhere seaman Hanumansingh (deceased no.2) Omprakash fallen ground because bullet accused. Hanumansingh (D2) Duty Quarter Master supposed a sentry entrance :6: another Quarter Master Vijayan - PW 8 hiding himself behind gangway D2 D1. Dhamdhere towards accused shouted him. The accused saying, "no Sir, Sir" lowered weapon, hands, waist. After a minute so, accused dropped weapon hesitations. Dhamdhere Vijayan, rope, weapon, accused dropped hiding away. Vijayan accordingly immediately thereafter Vijayan weapon shipway gangway. At stage, accused started running Jetty. Dhamdhere chasing shouting "pakdo pakdo", accused jumped INS Udaigiri (another ship). But divers INS Udaigiri caught accused brought INS Udaigiri. In meantime, D1 D2 hospital (INHS Ashwini) Midshipman Sur - PW 4 Midshipman Pokhriyal. Dhamdhere informed incident Commanding Officer Naval Police, :7: reached within 15 20 minutes City Police within hour. The 9 carbine picked Vijayan - PW 8 offence City Police arrived scene. It noticed carbine bullets shells offence. The accused arrested City Police INS Udaigiri

4.30 p.m. before statement Ravi Shankaran - PW 9 recorded PI Mitake - PW 15 INS Ranjit treated F.I.R. (Exh.55). In hospital victims declared Dr. Khade - PW 10 conducted autopsy bodies (Exh.63 Exh.59). Undoubtedly, because injuries head. Investigation completed The I.O. i.e. Mitake - PW 15 PI Garkal - PW

accused presented before Metropolitan Magistrate 25/11/1985 granted police custody. On 8/1/1986 accused remanded judicial custody. The charge-sheet on 18/1/1986, after receiving the reports from Forensic Laboratory as well as the Ballistic Expert. :8:

Charge (Exh.8) was framed by the Sessions Court on 12/6/1987 and the following issues were framed for determination:- (a) Does prosecution Omprakash Hanumansingh homicidal death? (b) Does prosecution accused committed murder Hanumansingh Omprakash by firing bullets from 9 mm carbine? (c) Does prosecution accused committed bullets 9 carbine INS Ranjit? (d) Does the accused prove that in the morning of 24/11/1985 between 11.00 and 11.30 a.m. at the time of committing the act viz. firing the bullets from 9 mm carbine at Omprakash and Hanumansingh, by reason of unsoundness of mind he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was wrong or contrary to law? :9: (e) Was sanction under Section 197 (2) of Cr.P.C. necessary before prosecuting the accused? this case? committed? (f) Does this court have jurisdiction to try (g) What offence the accused is proved to have . Issue Nos.1 to 3 and 6 were answered in the affirmative, whereas Issue Nos.4 5 answered negative. The accused guilty committing murder Omprakash Hanumansingh firing bullets 9 carbine. He IPC. guilty offence punishable Section 381 The prosecution examined witnesses. Duty Officer Shri Rajiv Dhamdhere - PW 23

1. Explosive Accounting Officer Lt. Commander Tenginakere Narasimha - PW

2. Shri Ramesh Chandra PW 3 accused allegedly snatched weapon (Article 1) magazine (Article 2) incident. Midshipman Sujit Sur - - PW :10: 4, complainant. Shri Birbal Singh - PW 5, a driver INS Udaigiri. Commandar Khalid Hasan - PW 6, Judge Advocate, Headquarters Western Naval Command, Mumbai. Shri Bachi Singh Bhauryal - PW 7, Petty Officer INS Ranjit. Shri V.V. Vijayan - PW Leading Seaman. Shri Ravi Shankaran - PW Midshipman. Dr. K.R. Khade - PW 10, Lecturer 8, 9, Forensic Medicine Grand Medical College, Mumbai. Lt. Hanuman Singh s/o Mangesh Singh - PW 11, a sailor INS Udaigiri. Dr. Pralhad Awale - PW Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Satara 12, examined accused 27/11/1985 St. Georges Hospital, Mumbai produced Colaba Police Station. Ranjit. Expert Shri Ramnathan - PW 13, Petty Officer, INS Shri Ram Govind Parakhi - PW 14, Ballistic Controller Inspection, Khadki. Shri Vishambar Mitake - PW 15, PSI Colaba Police Station. Shri Baliram More - PW 16, Police Constable Colaba Police Station. Shri A.M. Rao - PW 17, Assistant Chemical Analyser Forensic Science Laboratory, Mumbai. Shri Vishnu Landage - PW Police Sub Inspector Colaba Police Station. 18, Shri Babu Salunke - PW 19, Police Constable Colaba Police Station. Shri Rajaram Garkal - PW 20, PI :11: attached Colaba Police Station. Dr. Yeshwant Kelkar - PW 21, Superintendent Central Mental Hospital, Yerawada, Pune. Dr. Rajesh Zalpuri - PW 22, MO, Indian Navy and lastly, Shri Anilkumar Gaikwad - PW 23, Petty Officer on INS Ranjit.

The defence examined in all four witnesses. Shri Rakesh Kumar Mehta - DW 1, Judge Advocate, Headquarters Western Naval Command, Mumbai. Smt. Ivinder Kaur Bedi Dr.Murlidhar Kulkarni - - DW 2, mother accused. DW 3, MO, attached G.T. Hospital, Mumbai Dr. Tirandas Ramteke - DW 4, Chief Medical Officer attached Central Prison Hospital, Thane. The unsoundness making accused incapable knowing nature i.e. firing, pistol incapable knowing nature contrary jurisdiction raised Sessions accused. The jurisdiction, Court raised before Sessions Court, a different raised before us. It submitted Section 78(1) Navy Act, accused required :12: Court Martial Sessions Court jurisdiction accused. The learned Sessions Judge Naval Board Inquiry conducted statements recorded during inquiry available defence counsel making application inquiry papers returned Naval Authorities. These previous statements defence confront prosecution witnesses permitted Section 145 Indian Evidence Judge Advocate Commander (PW 5) Act prosecution witnesses, deposed before Sessions Court. The Sessions Court relied decision Joginder Singh vs. State Himachal Pradesh [AIR [AIR [AIR 1971 1971 1971 SC SC SC 500] 500] 500] rejected objection jurisdiction holding choice Naval Authorities either proceed Court Martial accused Sessions Court. It choice accused choose entirely discretion Naval Authorities either accused before the Court Martial or allow the trial to be conducted by the Sessions Court. :13:

Mr. Pradhan the learned counsel for the appellant jurisdiction raised a preliminary referring Rules 3 9 Rules. As him, procedure Rules followed before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, passed committal Section 209 Cr.P.C. Rules mandatory, non-compliance thereof, vitiated entire learned Additional Sessions Judge without jurisdiction therefore, impugned conviction and, sentence quashed aside. Mr. Pradhan fairly conceded arguments advanced accepted, a either Court Martial Sessions Court complying requirements Rules. In support of these arguments, he relied upon the decisions noted in para 1 hereiabove.

On merits, Mr. Pradhan submitted that the deceased fallen victim accidental firing accused and, therefore, guilty offence punishable Section 304-A I.P.C. :14: Thus before court, admitted impliedly sailors account bullets accused. Mrs. Deshmukh, learned APP, hand, opposed supported sentence. preliminary jurisdiction impugned conviction She pointed preliminary jurisdiction account Rules 1978 compliance appeal a agitated before Sessions Court, having cannot considered Appellate Court, record available Magistrate. She difficulties pointed Metropolitan enormous conducting a mainly because passage relied non-availability concerned witnesses. She decisions (i) Joginder Singh vs. State Himachal Pradesh [AIR [AIR [AIR 1971 1971 1971 SC SC SC 500] 500] 500] (ii) Balbir Singh anr. vs. State Punjab [(1995) [(1995) [(1995) 1 1 1 SCC SCC SCC 90]. 90] 90] As her, presumed Naval Authorities consented accused Sessions Court. The accused a limited jurisdiction, :15: contending required Court Martial defence rightly turned Sessions Court. Mrs. Deshmukh, therefore, before reject preliminary point of lack of jurisdiction and confirm the order of conviction and sentence on merits.

Section 549 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provided framing Rules Central Government consistent Code Army Act, Naval Discipline Act, Indian Navi (Discipline) Act, 1934 Air Force Act, persons subject military, Navy Air Force a Code applies intended a Court Martial. The Rules framed jurisdiction specially Court Martial ordinary criminal Court. The Central Government framed Criminal Courts Court Martial (Adjustment Jurisdiction) Rules, 1952 Section 549 (1) Code Code Criminal Procedure

1898. On amendment Criminal Procedure 1898, Section 549 therein replaced Section 475 Code Criminal :16: Procedure Government, 1973 consequently, exercise powers Central Section 475 Code, framed Rules

1978. Rules 3 7 relevant consideration Rules reproduced undoubtedly, accused Naval staff, relevant time, the said Rules were applicable to his trial as well:- "3. Where a person subject military, law, relating Armed Forces Union brought before a Magistrate charged offence liable a Court-martial, Magistrate proceed person commit Court Sessions, unless - (a) thereto a competent military, authority; (b) he is of opinion, for reasons to be recorded, that he should so proceed or to :17: commit without being moved thereto by such authority.

4. Before proceeding under clause (b) of Rule 3, the Magistrate shall give a written notice to the commanding officer or the competent military, naval or air force authority, as the case may be, of the accused and until the expiry of a period of fifteen days from the date of service of the notice he shall not- (a) convict acquit accused Section 252, sub-section (1) (2) Section 255, sub-section (1) section 256 Section 257 Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 1974), defence Section 254 Code; (b) writing a charge against accused Section 240 sub-section Section 246 Code; (1) (c) committing accused Court Sessions Section :18: 209 Code; (d) inquiry Section 192 Code.

5. Where a Magistrate has been moved by the competent military, naval or air force authority, as the case may be, under clause (a) of Rule 3, and the commanding officer or the accused or the competent military, naval or air force authority, as the case may be, subsequently gives notice to such Magistrate that, in the opinion of such officer or authority, the accused should be tried by a Court-Martial, such Magistrate if he has not taken any action or made any order referred to in clause (a), (b), (c) or (d) of Rule 4, before receiving the notice shall stay the proceedings and, if the accused is in his power or under his control, shall deliver him together with the statement referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 475 of the said Code to the officer specified in the said sub-section. :19:

6. Where within period fifteen mentioned Rule 4 thereafter before Magistrate action referred rule, commanding officer accused competent military, authority, be, notice Magistrate opinion officer authority, accused should a Court-martial, Magistrate proceedings, accused control, deliver together statement referred sub-section (1) Section 475 Code officer specified sub-section.

7. (1) When accused delivered Magistrate Rule 5 6, commanding officer accused competent military, authority, be, shall, be, inform Magistrate whether :20: accused a Court-martial effectual proceedings ordered against him. (2) When Magistrate informed sub-rule (1) accused effectual proceedings him, ordered against Magistrate report circumstances State Government may, consultation Government, appropriate Central insure accused person accordance law. "

When a person subject to military, naval or relating Armed Forces brought before a Magistrate charged a offence liable martial, Magistrate proceed person commit Court Session unless (a) effect competent military, authority (b) opinion reasons recorded, a :21: should proceed commit without thereto authority. Rule 3, opinion, person brought before a Magistrate charged offence. That adverted earlier accused directed appear before Magistrate Magistrate trial. either charged offence determined a Before proceeding further proceeding accused commit Court Session Magistrate must, Rule 4, written notice Commanding Officer accused refrain a period making 15 orders relation accused specified Rule

4. In Magistrate entering accused committing Court Session instance military, authority authority Commanding Officer accused notice subsequently Rule 5 Magistrate that, opinion officer authority accused should a martial. Upon notice, Magistrate, :22: action referred specifically Rule 4 before receiving proceedings deliver together statement referred 475(1) Code officer specified sub-section. In case, Magistrate intends proceed accused notice, accused Section commit a Court Session without behalf military, authority, notice Rule Commanding Officer military, authority intention so, Rule 4 6 empowers Commanding Officer competent authority notice aforesaid period 15 Magistrate within before Magistrate action referred rule, opinion officer authority accused should a It martial. Upon notice Magistrate proceedings deliver accused together statement referred Section 475(1) Code officer specified sub-section. accused Magistrate Commanding Officer competent :23: military, authority purpose a martial against him.

For Rule 7(1) provides accused delivered a Magistrate Rule 5 6 Commanding Officer competent military, authority must, be, inform Magistrate whether accused a martial effectual proceedings ordered against him. communication information mandatory. Magistrate informed accused effectual proceedings ordered against him, The When obliged report circumstance Government State Government, State consultation Central Government appropriate ensure accused person accordance law. The policy clear. Once criminal determines trial, pursuant aforesaid delivers accused Commanding Officer competent military, authority, a rule, intends accused either a martial effectual proceedings :24: against him. To ensure proceedings against accused, Rules require Commanding Officer competent authority inform Magistrate done. 7(2) appears envisage possibility Commanding Officer competent military, authority accused effectual proceedings against Rule Magistrate a trial.

To exigency provides State Government consultation Central Government, a report Magistrate effect, appropriate ensure accused escape attention law. The policy constitutional polity person should regarded law. Military, personnel subject members Rule 8 population. It significant empowers Magistrate, coming a person subject military, relating Armed Forces committed offence proceedings respect instituted before presence person cannot procured :25: except through military, authorities, require Commanding Officer person either deliver person a Magistrate proceeded against according proceedings against person before martial instituted, a reference Central Government determination as to the court before which the proceedings should be instituted.

In the case of Loraiya (Supra), the trial before Special Judge Section 120-B Section 5(1) 5(2) Prevention Corruption Act quashed High Court IPC grounds framed charges Special Judge without following procedure specified Rules framed Section 549 Cr.P.C.

1898. In appeal Delhi Special Police Establishment, Supreme Court charges framed Special Judge against accused survive procedure specified Rule 3 1952 Rules followed Special Judge before framing charges against accused. The phrase, "is liable either :26: a Court Code applies a Court-martial" intended initial jurisdiction courts cognizance jurisdiction decide merits. passed High Court confirmed The Usha Ranjan Roy Choudhury (Supra), additional submitted procedure 1952 Rules applicable Court Magistrate Court a Special Judge. argument overruled. On requirement This follow the procedure framed under the Rules of 1952, the Supreme Court stated thus, "9. Having regard to the enunciation of law to this effect it is evident that the ordinary criminal court would have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case and to try the accused in a matter where the procedure prescribed by the Rules has not been complied with. The initial lack of jurisdiction to take cognizance and try the case would of logical necessity vitiate the trial and the order of conviction and sentence would be liable to be quashed as a result :27: thereof. We are therefore unable to accede to the submission urged on behalf of the appellant-State that even if the Rules are applicable, having regard to the fact that more than three years have expired from the date of the commission of the alleged offence, the trial is not vitiated. " . In the case of Major S.K. Sharma (Supra) the Supreme Court reiterated that the procedural requirement under Rules of 1978 was mandatory.

Bench The case of Joginder Singh (Supra) was decided 30/11/1970 a Bench Judges, whereas S.K. Loraiya decided 24/8/1972 Judges Loraiya’s subsequently followed a S.K. Usha Rajan Roy Choudhury (Supra) Major Sharma (Supra). The Supreme Court Joginder’ referred Sections 125 126 Army Act Designated Officer Section 125 chosen exercise discretion decided before proceedings should instituted particular decide proceedings should Court-martial, :28: instituted before a occasion Criminal Court procedure Section 126 Army Act. It Designated Officer exercised discretion decided proceedings should instituted before Court-martial, provisions Section 126(1) Army Act, operation exercise discretion decide proceedings should instituted before Court-martial, Army Act obviously Criminal Court exercising ordinary jurisdiction in the manner provided by law. In para 31 the Supreme Court concluded as under:- "31.......Surrender of the accused to the civil authorities to be dealt with by the latter, after being made aware of the nature of the offence against the appellant, is a clear indication that the decision of the military authorities was that the appellant need not be tried by a Court-martial and that his trial can take place before the criminal Court. Under these circumstances there was no :29: occasion to follow the procedure under Section 126 or Rule 4 as the military authorities had made abundantly clear that the appellant need not be tried by the court-martial. That being so, it would have been altogether superfluous for the Magistrate to give the notice as required by the said provisions. Rules 5 and 8 have no application to the facts of this case. " . As noted earlier, the decision in the case of Loraiya rendered a Judge Bench. Mrs. Deshmukh, learned APP was, therefore, relying Joginder Singh (Supra). Even otherwise, scheme Section 78 Navy Act materially different from the scheme of Sections 125 and 126 of the Army Act.

Section 3(3) of the Navy Act, 1957, defines "Civil offence" offence triable a ordinary criminal jurisdiction India. Whereas, Section 3(13) "naval offence" offences Sections 34 :30: 76 Act. Section 93(1) Navy Act states 77(1) offence triable Act punished court-martial. As Section Navy Act, person subject commits a offence punishable imprisonment punished punishment assigned offence. Whereas Section 77(2) states person subject commits offence punished either punishment assigned offence imprisonment a extend punishment mentioned in the Act. Section 78 of the Navy Act reads as under:- "78. Jurisdiction offences.- (1) (2), Subject provisions sub-section person subject charged a offence a offence punished Act regardless alleged offence committed. (2) A person subject to naval law who commits :31: an offence of murder against a person not subject to army, naval or air force law or an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder against such person or an offence of rape in relation to such person shall not be tried and punished under this Act unless he commits any of the said offences- (a) active service; (b) at any place outside India; or (c) at any place specified by the Central Government by notification in this behalf.

78(1) either Mr. Pradhan submitted that as per Section Navy Act, accused court-martial ordinary criminal and, therefore, Rules framed Section 475 Cr.P.C. applicable conflict. As him, charge-sheet submitted I.O. before learned Metropolitan Magistrate 18/1/1986, necessary follow procedure Rule 3 Rules before passed :32: committal 24/1/1986 committed Sessions. The committal passed learned Metropolitan Magistrate unless thereto competent authority Magistrate recorded opinion should proceed commit without thereto authority. Pradhan further submitted Rule 4 Mr. Rules, competent authority learned Magistrate invoke powers Rule 3(b), mandatory Magistrate a written notice Commanding Officer competent authority, be, accused expiry a period 15 service notice, committing accused sessions Section 209 Code. This mandatory procedure, prescribed Rules 3 7 Rules, followed before committal passed instant therefore, learned Additional Sessions and, Judge proceeded without authority vitiated, thereby warranting impugned conviction sentence :33: quashed aside. These arguments Mr. Pradhan supported Lt. Col. S.K. Loraiya (Supra), Usha Ranjan Choudhury (Supra) Major S.K. Sharma (Supra). Roy We impressed submissions Mrs. Deshmukh jurisdiction raised defence before raised appeal, thereby denying opportunity objection jurisdiction. In Moly anr. (Supra) criminal appeal before Supreme Court a primary entertained registered complaint a sessions case. Such raised before the trial court nor before the High Court and the objection was overruled by the Supreme Court.

Section 4 of Cr.P.C. states that all offences Indian Penal Code investigated inquired otherwise, according provisions Code offences investigated inquired into, otherwise :34: according provisions, subject enactment regulating manner trying shall, investigating, inquiring otherwise dealing offences. Section 5 Cr.P.C., nothing contained therein absence a specific provision contrary affect special force, special jurisdiction conferred, prescribed, special procedure force. We referred scheme Section Navy Act dispute appellant charged offences triable by the court-martial or the court of ordinary criminal jurisdiction. . On the scheme of Section 4(2) of Cr.P.C., the supreme court in the case of A.R. Antulay vs. Ramdas committal Section 209 Cr.P.C. came to be passed on the same day reading as under: " Accused produced jail. Copies police papers furnished accused. alleged offence within jurisdiction The Court Sessions, Greater Bombay.

The learned APP expressed apprehension regarding availability concerned witnesses i.e. twenty years. It record enquiry conducted Naval Board incident papers produced before Sessions :45: Court during trial. By filing a separate application, papers withdrawn obviously enquiry papers custody Naval Authorities / Naval Board. Though witnesses retired service now, cannot accepted presumed witnesses available. PW 9 - Lt. Ravi Shankaran (Retd.) addressed letter 31st March 2009 us. In conducted afresh either Court martial Sessions Court, imperative Naval authorities including Commanding officer accused relevant Commanding Officer present ensure concerned witnesses produced before Court Martial Sessions Court, without causing delay. Interest justice better served direct trial on remand is conducted and completed within a specific period.

In the premises, we allow the appeal partly, conviction sentence a nullity law. Sessions Case No. :46: 79 1986 hereby stands restored charge-sheet 18/1/1986 Sessions registered remitted Metropolitan Magistrate’s 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai forthwith. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed appropriate required Rules transfer Court Martial Section 209 Cr.P.C. committing Sessions Court following procedure Rules 3 7 Rules expeditiously possible before 31st July

2009. We further direct Court Martial Sessions Court, be, completed, required basis, preferably 31st December

2009. The learned Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai may, required, assign Sessions Case remain a Fast Track Court completed 31st December

2009. The accused continue 31st December 2009 completion trial, whichever earlier, provided remains present before Court Metropolitan Magistrate Court Martial :47: Sessions Court, required. The before Court Martial / Sessions Court a entirety. Failure accused remain present before learned Metropolitan Magistrate Sessions Court result Court Martial cancellation / automatically Court Martial / Sessions Court shall direct the accused to be taken in custody. . The R. & P. be returned to the Sessions Court forthwith letter PW

9. The Sessions Court return charge-sheet 18/1/1986 learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai Court before 8th June

2009. The accused appear before learned Metropolitan Magistrate 10th June 2009 Criminal Complaint No.332/P/1986 will be listed before the said Court for orders. (D.G.KARNIK,J.)

(B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)