SUSHIL HIRALAL CHOKHANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2005-4-107
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on
April 26,2005
SUSHIL HIRALAL CHOKHANI
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF BIHAR VS. RAM NARESH PANDEY:RAM NARESH PANDEY [REFERRED TO]KUMAON MOTOR OWNERS UNION LIMITED VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH GILL VS. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
MUKUL DALAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. E G NAMBUDIRI [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA GUPTA I F S SECRETARY DEPTT OF FOREST CHANDRA GUPTA I F S VS. SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS:R S SINGH:R S SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SHIV KUMAR VS. HUKAM CHAND [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
VARADA RAMA MOHANA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY VALIA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
A S SHIRSAT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-9-66] [REFERRED TO]PRAKASH PRALHAD PATIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-7-84] [REFERRED TO]
UMESH BALASAHEB KALABHOR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-7-71] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH PRALHAD PATIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-6-297] [REFERRED]
UMESH BALASAHEB KALABHOR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-7-256] [REFERRED]
JUDGEMENT
R. M. S. Khandeparkar, J. -
(1.)Since common questions of law and facts arise in both these petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.)In both the petitions, rule, and by consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Advocates for the petitioners as well as the learned advocate and A. P. P. for the respondents and the State.
(3.)The justifiability of the appointments of the respondent No. 2 in both the petitions as the Special Public Prosecutors, at the instance and cost of the complainants in the criminal cases, is being challenged in these petitions. Apart from non compliance of the Rules framed in relation to such appointment, the petitioners also complain about non compliance of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in (Mukul Dalai and Ors. v. Union of India) , reported in 1988 (3) Bom. C. R. (S. C. ) 410 : 1988 (3) S. C. C. 144, in that regard.
(2.)In both the petitions, rule, and by consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Advocates for the petitioners as well as the learned advocate and A. P. P. for the respondents and the State.
(3.)The justifiability of the appointments of the respondent No. 2 in both the petitions as the Special Public Prosecutors, at the instance and cost of the complainants in the criminal cases, is being challenged in these petitions. Apart from non compliance of the Rules framed in relation to such appointment, the petitioners also complain about non compliance of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in (Mukul Dalai and Ors. v. Union of India) , reported in 1988 (3) Bom. C. R. (S. C. ) 410 : 1988 (3) S. C. C. 144, in that regard.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.