PANDIT DNYANU KHOT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(SC)-2002-5-3
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on May 02,2002

PANDIT DNYANU KHOT Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

PURAN VS. RAMBILAS [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

SORAB VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-1-38] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. TAPAN DEBBARMA [LAWS(TRIP)-2022-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. KISHORBHAI RATILAL CHALIYAWALA [LAWS(GJH)-2007-9-41] [REFERRED TO]
ROHAN SUNIL ABBOTT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-11-42] [REFERRED TO]
VENKATESAN BALASUBRAMANIYAN VS. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, D.R.I. BANGALORE [LAWS(SC)-2020-11-25] [REFERRED TO]
ROHAN SUNIL ABBOTT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-11-280] [REFERRED TO]
AMBARISH RANGSHAHI PATNIGERE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-7-205] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)As none was appearing on behalf of the accused despite service, we have appointed mr. D. N. Goburdhan as amicus curiae to assist us.
(3.)By order dated 2nd May, 2001 passed in crl. miscellaneous application no. 14/2001, the Vth additional sessions judge, kolhapur set aside the judgment and order passed by the judicial magistrate, first class, Malkapur releasing the accused under section 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P. C. ) on the ground that the charge-sheet was not submitted within a period of 90 days. The High Court by impugned judgment and order dated 31.7.2001 passed in criminal application no. 1694 of 2001 set aside the judgment and order passed by the sessions judge, kolhapur by holding that the order passed by the judicial magistrate. Malkapur being an interlocutory order was not revisable under the revisional jurisdiction.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.