STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus SHANKAR GANAPATI RAHATOL & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 1029 · Decided: 31-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1029
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
v.
SHANKAR GANAPATI RAHATOL & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 799 of 2010)
JANUARY 31, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.378(3) – Leave to
prefer appeal before High Court – Trial court acquitted accused
against the charges u/ss.143, 147, 323 r/w. ss.149, 325 of IPC and
s.135 of Bombay Police Act – State’s application u/s.378(3) before
the High Court was rejected – Revision petition by complainant
against the acquittal order was also rejected by the High Court –
On appeal, held: The reason for rejection of application u/s.378(3)
was contrary to the evidence on record – Material on record indicate
a prima facie case to prefer appeal against the judgment of the trial
court – It is a fit case for grant of leave to appeal also in view of the
fact that a cross-complaint relating to the same incident is pending
in appeal before the High Court – Impugned order of the High
Court rejecting application u/s.378(3) set aside – No reason to reject
the revision petition filed by the complainant – Accordingly, matter
remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration, to decide the
criminal revision on its own merit – Penal Code 1860 – ss.143, 147,
323 r/w. 149, 325 – Bombay Police Act – s. 135.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The reason for rejecting the application for leave
to appeal ran contrary to evidence on record.  In any event, having
perused the material on record, prima facie,  a case is made out
by the State for grant of leave to prefer appeal against the
judgment and order dated 06.05.2005, passed by the trial Court.
[Para 5][1032-F]
1.2  There was also a cross complaint by other faction in
the village relating to same date incident on which basis a case
was registered and the accused therein were tried and convicted
for offences under Section 143, 147, 307, 324, 427, 504, 395,
325, 337, 452 read with 149, 325 IPC. Appeal preferred against
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 1029
1029
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1030
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
that judgment is pending before the High Court.  As the two
groups in the village filed cross complaints and appeal arising
out of one is pending before the High Court. It is a fit case for
grant of leave.  [Para 6][1032-G-H; 1033-A]
1.3  For the aforesaid reason this appeal is allowed and
impugned order dated 13.06.2008, rejecting leave to appeal
u/s.378(3) of Cr.P.C., is set aside. Consequently, application filed
before the High Court stands allowed.  The criminal appeal
preferred by the State challenging the acquittal in the trial Court
shall be taken on file.   [Para 7][1033-B]
State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar
(2008) 9 SCC 475 : [2008] 13  SCR 750  –  referred
to.
2.1  This Court is of the view that as the impugned order of
the High Court in Criminal Application u/s.378(3) of Cr.P.C. has
already been set aside in the appeal filed by the State, there is no
reason to reject the revision filed by the complainant. [Para
11][1033-F]
2.2  Accordingly, the impugned order of the High Court in
Criminal revision application is set aside and the matter is
remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration, to decide the
criminal revision on its own merit. [Para 12][1033-F-G]
Case Law Reference
[2008] 13 SCR 750  
referred to
Para 4
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
799 of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated  13.06.2008 of the High
Court of  Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Application No. 4504 of
2006.
WITH
Criminal Appeal Nos.798, 800 of 2010 and 197 of 2019.
 Vinay Navare, Pravin Satale, Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Ms. Deepa
M Kulkarni, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Sushil Karanjkar,
K.N. Rai, Advs. for the appearing parties.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1031
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. 1. The State of Maharashtra has
preferred this appeal aggrieved by the order  dated 13.06.2008, passed
by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in criminal Application No.
4504 of 2006.
2. On 01.09.1998 a complaint was lodged by one Shivram, who
was examined as P.W.1  stating that on 29.08.1998 at around 9 O’Clock
he was doing work in Hanuman Water Supply Society, sitting at Kalamma
Milk Dairy.  At that time the loud speaker was switched off.  When he
came out of Milk Dairy to know whey loud speaker was switched off,
he found  Ananda  Ganpati Rhatol, Shankar Ganpati Rhatol, Yashvant
Shripati Rhatol, Shivaji Bapu Khot, Rangrao Piraji Angaj, Shankar Ganu
Metil, Samad
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.