VINOD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Shri Bankapur for the Applicantunder trial prisoner and the learned APP.

(2.) This is one of the example wherein even the District Judges who have acquired some experience deal with the issue improperly. Any Judge who is dealing with any issue is basically supposed to know what are the issues to be decided and what is the scope of enquiry to be conducted. If a Judge misses these issues and deal with the prayer, it results into undesired results.

(3.) When the Applicant has prayed for direction to jail administration to produce the Applicant in the office of SubRegistrar of Assurances, Nashik, the learned Judge decided the application as if he is dealing with a challenge to an action taken as per the provisions of SARFAESI Act and as if he is dealing with the prayer for temporary or interim bail. Why I am saying this because in an impugned order, the learned Judge in Para No.4 opined that "not a single document is placed on record by the Applicant showing action being initiated by the SBI Bank as per the SARFAESI Act. " Nowhere the Applicant has challenged that action.