Shri Hanumant Dinkar Arjun (App) VERSUS Shri Suresh R. Andhare & Anr (Res) CRIMINAL APPEAL No.25 OF 2009

inbatv News

“Revision is the process of examination of an order of a lower court by the higher court, so as to rectify any improper exercise of judicial power”

On may 3,2019, the Supreme Court passed it’s judgment for the criminal appeal filed in the case mentioned above. This appeal was filed against the final judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in 2008 in which the High Court dismissed the criminal revision application filed by the appellant. This appeal was filed under the section (1)166 ,(2)167 ,(3)201 to 204 of IPC , 1860 read with (4)section 25 of Bombay Police Act, 1951.
This complaint was filed because of the judgment made by the Additional Sessions Judge,Baramati; which was made according to adverse examination by which four accused persons were convicted under section 302/34 IPC for life imprisonment of life and 2000 rs fine each. The appellant says, that the judgment of this case was made out on the basis of prima facie investigation done by SI of police against respondent No.1 for initiating criminal action against him. The Courts below, however, declined this prayer made by the appellant and the High Court by the impugned order upheld the order declining the prayer giving rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave in this Court by the appellant.
Both parties are in agreement that the accused people have filed Criminal appeal in the high court against the order given in 2003 which is pending in the High Court. Justice Sapre and Justice D. Maheshwari quoted, if that be so, then in his opinion, the order given on 26.02.2003, that was given according to the complaint in question, is under judicial consideration and therefore prohibited from public discussions in the criminal appeal. To simplify we can say, when the order, which is the foundation for filing the complaint in question itself is sub judice, the appellant is required to await the final outcome of the criminal appeal filed by the accused persons.
Justice Sapre and Justice Maheshwari finally disposed off this appeal by stating that it is for this reason, they were not inclined to entertain this appeal and granted liberty to the appellant to move afresh in order to raise his grievance which was in question depending upon the outcome of the Criminal Appeal filed by the accused persons against the order give on 26.02.2003. The ending statement given by the bench was “We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, which is subject matter of the complain. With these observations, this appeal stands disposed off finally.”

  1. Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person
  2. Public servant framing an incorrect document, with intent to cause injury to a person
  3. 201 – 204 (causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen offender;intentional omission of giving information;giving false information regarding an offense;destruction of document to prevent it from being produced as evidence)
  4. Sec 25 of BPA;Punishment of members of subordinate ranks of police force departmentally for neglecting duty.

Report by
Srishti Dubey
Intern, INBA