Okocha Mike vs Union Of India And Anr on 5 October, 2018

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Okocha Mike vs Union Of India And Anr on 5 October, 2018

Bench: A.M.Badar

                                                                   34.APEAL.420.13.doc


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.420 OF 2013
                                  WITH
                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.323 OF 2018
                                   IN
                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.420 OF 2013

Okocha Mike                                                )...Appellant

           V/s.

Union of India & Anr.                                      )...Respondents

Mr.   Ayaz   Khan   a/w.   Ms.   Zehra   Charania,   Advocate   for   the
Appellant.

Mr. S.V. Gavand, APP for the Respondent/State.

                                 CORAM    :  A.M.BADAR, J.

DATED : 5th OCTOBER 2018.

P.C. :

1. This Court is noticing since long that nobody is representing the Intelligence Officer of Customs, Air Intelligence Unit, C.S. International Airport, Sahar, Mumbai, who is the respondent No.1 herein. Somebody keeps information with the Sheristedar of this Court that the concerned counsel is busy in some other matter and that is how adjournments are sought in this Aarti Palkar 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2018 01:46:48 :::

34.APEAL.420.13.doc matter.

2. Considering the old pendency of the appeal, this Court is trying to take up the appeal for final hearing despite repeated insistence on the part of the learned counsel for the appellant to decide the bail application preferred by the appellant.

3. It appears that the respondent No.1/prosecuting agency viz. Intelligence Officer of Customs, Air Intelligence Unit is handling the matter very casually and negligently. There is no seriousness in prosecuting the instant appeal or bail application by the respondent No.1/prosecuting agency.

4. Today, nobody represented the respondent No.1/prosecuting agency i.e. Intelligence Officer of Customs, Air Intelligence Unit. The Sheristedar of this Court informs that one Mr. W.V. Gaikwad claiming to be an advocate has informed her that Mrs. Mane, Advocate is appearing for respondent No.1/prosecuting agency and she is not available.

5. The Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the respondent No.1/prosecuting agency in order to enable it to engage suitable counsel to represent it before this Court. It is Aarti Palkar 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2018 01:46:48 :::

34.APEAL.420.13.doc made clear that if on the next date of hearing, the learned counsel for respondent No.1/prosecuting agency fails to appear before this Court, then the appeal shall be heard and decided without any further waiting for the learned counsel for respondent No.1/prosecuting agency.

6. The Registry to take follow up action immediately.

7. In this view of the matter, stand over to 26th October 2018.

(A.M.BADAR J.) Aarti Palkar 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2018 01:46:48 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court