IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.592 OF 2015
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.572 OF 2015
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.572 OF 2015
Salman Salim Khan … Applicant
versus
State of Maharashtra … Respondent
Counsels:
- Mr.Harish Salve Senior Advocate with Mr.Shrikant Shivade with Mr.Niranjan Mundargi with Mr.Anand Desai with Mr.Nirav Shah with Ms.Chandrima Mitra with Mr.Manhar S.Saini, Advocate for the Applicant.
- Mr.S.S.Shinde, Public Prosecutor with Mr.Deepak Thakre, APP for the Respondent.
CORAM :
ABHAY M. THIPSAY J.
DATED : 6TH MAY 2015
ORDER
- This appeal, which has been filed today, has been placed on board on being mentioned for production on the ground of urgency. The appellant has been convicted of offences punishable under Sections 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 338 of the IPC, 337 of the IPC and offences punishable under Motor Vehicles Act. He has been sentenced to different terms of Imprisonment in respect of various offences of which he has been found guilty. The most severe sentence imposed upon the applicant/appellant is in respect of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, which is of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years and fine of Rs.25,000/. The Judgment of the trial Court has been delivered today itself.
- The urgency in the matter is arising out of the fact that the appellant, who was throughout on bail, is likely to be taken in custody, on conviction. It is submitted that though the applicant/appellant has been convicted, copy of the impugned Judgment had not been delivered to him yet. That the copy is not so delivered, is not in dispute.
- Mr.S.K.Shinde, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that appeal is not competent, inasmuch as, it is not accompanied by a copy of the impugned Judgment. Though this appears to be correct, in view of the admitted position that the copy of the impugned judgment had not been delivered to the applicant/appellant at all, it would not be proper to deny the urgent relief sought for by the appellant, which is in the nature of continuation of his bail for some further period. This is particularly so, because the Court time is getting over; and even otherwise, it would not be possible to hear elaborate arguments on the merits of the conviction, without knowing the contents of the Judgment delivered by the trial Court.
- Since the applicant/appellant was on bail throughout the trial, and since a copy of the impugned judgment of conviction has not yet been furnished to him, it would be proper to protect the appellant for some time in the interest of justice.
- On hearing Mr.Harish Salve, the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, it appears that there is a possibility of the appellant securing a copy of the judgment by 8th May 2015.
- In view of this, it is directed that the appeal be listed on board, for admission, on 8th May 2015.
- In the meantime, the applicant/ appellant shall be permitted to remain on the same bail as was granted to him during the trial, but on executing a fresh bond before the trial Court.
- All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this Order.
- Leave to amend the appeal memo by annexing a copy of the judgment as soon as it is made available and also by incorporating additional grounds, if so desired.
(ABHAY M. THIPSAY J.)
