Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bombay High Court

Mohamad Majid Mohamad Shafi vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 January, 2020

Author: Surendra P. Tavade

Bench: Ranjit More, Surendra P. Tavade

                                                                   2.COMF.2.15.doc

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                       CONFIRMATION CASE NO.02 OF 2015
The State of Maharashtra                                   ....Appellant
    Versus
Kamal Ahmed Mohd. Vakil Ansari & Ors.                      ....Respondents
                                  ALONG WITH
                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.71 OF 2019
Mohammad Sajid Margub Ansari                               ....Appellant
    Versus
The State of Maharashtra                                   ....Respondent
                                  ALONG WITH
                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.72 OF 2019
Mohammad Majid Mohamad Shafi                               ....Appellant
    Versus
The State of Maharashtra                                   ....Respondent
Mr. Raja Thakare a/w. Mr. A.M. Chimalkar, Spl. Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Mr. Gourav Bhawnani, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Abdul H. Kotwale, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr. Hetal Sheth, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Mr. Shahid Nadeem i/by Ansari Tamboli, Advocate for respondent No.4.
Mr. Aditya Mehta, Advocate for respondent No.5.
Mr. F.A. Inamdar i/by Ishrat A. Khan, Advocate for Appellant in Appeal
Nos.71 of 2019 & 72/2019.
                                 CORAM : RANJIT MORE &
                                         SURENDRA P. TAVADE, JJ.

DATE : 27th JANUARY, 2020.

P. C. :

1. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 respectively, at the outset, submit that there are 200 documents, which are exhibited, but they are not part of the paper-book. They further make a statement that they will take inspection and verify the documents and get copies thereof from the Registry. They seek some accommodation to undertake above exercise.

2.COMF.2.15.doc

2. We are reluctant to grant accommodation since it is confirmation case of 2016. However, by way of indulgence and since it is stated that the said documents are important, we grant two weeks' time.

3. The Registry is directed to allow the learned counsel for the respective parties to take inspection of the documents in presence of the officer of ATS.

4. Stand over to 10th February, 2020.

[SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.] Aarti Palkar 2/2 ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 18:23:57 :::