Bombay High Court Defers Hearing in Criminal Revision Application Due to Unavailability of Prosecutor. Adjournment Request Refused but Hearing Deferred to Following Week as Matter Pertained to 1993.

High Court: Bombay High Court
  • 15
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

On 17 February 2005, the Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, took up Criminal Revision Application No.57 of 1993. The applicants, Govind Vishwanath Karche and another, were represented by Mr. Prasad Rane, instructed by Mr. R.V. More. The State of Maharashtra and another were the respondents, with Mr. D.R. More as Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1. The applicants' counsel made a request for adjournment, i.e., to keep the matter back, on the ground that Mr. D.R. More, the Additional Public Prosecutor, was held up in another court. The Court, noting that the matter pertained to the year 1993, observed that the request for adjournment could not be acceded to. However, upon Mr. Rane's assurance that he would work out the matter if given time until Monday, the Court deferred the hearing to the week commencing 21 February 2005. No substantive order on the merits of the revision application was passed, and the proceedings remained purely procedural. No legal issues were argued or decided. The order was per curiam with no detailed reasoning.

Issue of Consideration

CRIMINAL REVN.APPLICATION NO.57 OF 1993

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Court declined the request for adjournment, but deferred hearing to the week commencing 21st February 2005, noting that the matter pertained to 1993.

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (02) 260

Criminal Revn. Application No.57 of 1993

2005-02-17

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

2005:BHC-AS:3666

Mr. Prasad Rane, Mr. R.V. More, Mr. D.R. More

Govind Vishwanath Karche & anr.

The State of Maharashtra & anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal revision application

Remedy Sought

Adjournment of hearing

Submissions/Arguments

Applicants' counsel prayed for keeping back the matter because Respondent No.1's advocate, Mr. D.R. More, A.P.P., was held up in some other Court.

Judgment Excerpts

Mr. Rane prays for keeping back the matter on the ground that Mr. More is held up in some other Court. The request cannot be acceded to. However, as Mr. Rane has assured the Court that he will work out the matter, if indulgence is given till Monday, hearing of the matter is deferred till the week commencing from 21st February 2005.

Procedural History

Criminal Revision Application No.57 of 1993 was filed. On 17th February 2005, the Court considered an adjournment request. The hearing was deferred to the week of 21st February 2005.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Defers Hearing in Criminal Revision Application Due to Unavailability of Prosecutor. Adjournment Request Refused but Hearing Deferred to Following Week as Matter Pertained to 1993.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Insurance Company's Appeal and Partly Allows Claimant's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Vehicle Planting Allegation Not Proven, Compensation Enhanced. The Court held that mere suspicion of vehicle planting without...