SUKHDEV SINGH JAMVAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I heard Mr.Bagaria for the Petitioner and Mr. Mehta for the C.B.I. In this case, previously, I heard arguments of Mr.C.G.Gavnekar who appeared for the Petitioner; State was represented by Smt.J.S.Pawar. After hearing the parties. the petition was partly allowed and the proceedings in Special Case No. 27/92 were quashed and set aside.

(2.) THIS was done by me on the basis of a ruling of this court which was relied upon and cited by Mr.Gavnekar i.e. reported in 1995(1) Mh.L J. 558 - State of Maharashtra V/s Ramkrishna Dorkar delivered by Mr.Justice R.M. Lodha. This Judgment in consequence was based upon a Judgment of Mr. Justice M.F.Saldanha reported in 1993 Mh.L J. 152 Ishwar Piraj Kalpatri and Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

(3.) MR . Gavnekar, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, insisted that the notice be given to the accused and consequently notice was given to the accused and when the matter came before me for hearing on my notice, Mr. Gavnekar did not appear and the accused was represented by Mr. Bagaria. I heard Mr. Bagaria for the accused and the learned counsel for the C.B.I. on 30th April, 1997 and on 2nd May, 1997. The learned counsel for the C.B.I. tried to tender an application for review of my order dt. 18th February, 1997, on the ground that for the reasons beyond control, the learned counsel for the C.B.I. did not and could not remain present before me on 18th February, 1997. I refused to entertain such an application firstly because it was filed beyond time, and secondly, it was not an exparte order and thirdly because this court had issued notice to the parties as to why the order dt.18th February, 1997, should not be set aside as it is based on the reversed ruling of this Court.