SHAIKH SHAKIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of respondents. By consent, heard finally forthwith.

(2.) The petitioner is one of the accused in R.C.C. No. 93/2008 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir. There are total 14 accused in the said case, which is in respect of offences punishable under section 143 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), section 353 of IPC, section 341 of IPC, section 427 of IPC and section 332 of IPC and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The case was originally registered against about 75 to 100 unknown persons, but the Investigating Agency after investigation could file chargesheet only against 14 of them. Out of these 14 only the petitioner and two or three more are attending the Court. The chargesheet has been filed in the year 2008 and since then the petitioner has been remaining present before the Court on all the dates of hearing. However, as the other accused do not remain present, the case is not proceeding further. Troubled by this situation, the petitioner on 04.12.2012 made an application (Exhibit 43) before the learned Magistrate praying that the case of the petitioner be separated in the interest of justice, and that, the petitioner be tried separately. To this application, the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Incharge of the matter signified his no objection. It appears that that application was pending for one year before the Magistrate, which ultimately came to be rejected by him, by an order dated 03.12.2013. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order and has approached this Court invoking its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) I have heard Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. I have also heard the respondent no.2, who is Investigating Officer in the matter.