Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Pravin Ramdas Rathod vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 7 June, 2023

Author: Sharmila U. Deshmukh

Bench: Nitin W. Sambre, Sharmila U. Deshmukh

  2023:BHC-AS:15082-DB



                       (14)-WP-10-23.doc.


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
          Digitally
          signed by
          BALAJI
BALAJI    GOVINDRAO
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
                                                  WRIT PETITION NO.10 OF 2023
PANCHAL   Date:
          2023.06.08
          16:34:11
          +0530

                       Pravin Ramdas Rathod                                               ..Petitioner
                             Versus
                       The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                                    ..Respondents

                       Mr. Shivaji Masal a/w Manasi Pawar, for the Petitioner.
                       Mr. J. P. Yagnik, APP for the Respondent/State.

                                                             CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &
                                                                     SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATE : 7th JUNE, 2023 P.C.

1. The quashing of the prosecution initiated vide Crime No.175 of 2013 for an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Sections, 51, 53 and 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is sought on the ground of delay in deciding the trial. It is claimed that though sufficient attempts were made by the Court of Magistrate to conclude the trial, for want of presence of witnesses and the complainant, trial could not be concluded and that being so, the said infringes the fundamental right of the petitioner to speedy trial.

2. According to the petitioner, if this Court directs the Trial Court to conclude the trial within a reasonable period of four months, he will not press the petition and shall appear before the Trial Court.

                       BGP.                                                                          1 of 2




                              ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2023                      ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 21:14:26 :::
 (14)-WP-10-23.doc.


3. The prayer appears to be quite reasonable.

4. The petition accordingly stands disposed of.

5. We direct the learned Trial Court to expeditiously decide the trial pending against the petitioner referred above and conclude the same expeditiously and in any case within a period of nine months from the date of production of this order by the petitioner.

6. The order of expediting the trial is passed keeping in mind the litigation policy and pendency of the trial for more than five years.





[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]                     [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]




BGP.                                                                    2 of 2




       ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2023                ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 21:14:26 :::