SALMAN SALIM KHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.