The State of Maharashtra v. Mr.Ganesh Gole
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 13 Jan 2005
- Bench
- R M LODHA, R S MOHITE
Outcome
Dismissed
appeals are dismissed for want of
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Criminal application stands disposed of. J.) (R.M.LODHA, J.) J.) (R.M.LODHA, (R.M.LODHA, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) J.) (R.S.MOHITE, (R.S.MOHITE,
Judgment
Smt.V.R.Bhonsale, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr.Ganesh Gole, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 5. Respondent No.2 is reported to be dead.
Operative part
The criminal appeal came to be dismissed on 28th July, 2003 by the following order:- called placed "When noticed Bench Division acquittal Kejariwal, assigned assigned appeals are dismissed for want of prosecution. " APP assigned matter matter because submits Mr.Singhal her. Mr.Singhal. called out. appeal filed. though It He before against Ms.Usha thereafter present initially Both 2
filing By application prayed criminal restoration application condoned criminal appeal restored. The filing criminal restoration application appears occurred diligence concerned office office Public Prosecutor. There challenge aspect respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 5 since no reply affidavit has been filed.
As regards non-appearance Additional Public Prosecutor, stated
28.7.2003 concerned Additional Public Prosecutor office afternoon fallen sick. This statement made in the application has not been traversed by respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 5.
We are, thus, satisfied making criminal restoration application belatedly deserves to be condoned and the criminal appeal deserves to be restored. Order accordingly.
Criminal application stands disposed of. J.) (R.M.LODHA, J.) J.) (R.M.LODHA, (R.M.LODHA, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) J.) (R.S.MOHITE, (R.S.MOHITE,
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: appeals are dismissed for want of
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 13 Jan 2005. The bench was R M LODHA, R S MOHITE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.