You are on page 1of 3

pro.1.APPANo.5922015.

doc

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY

WITH

C
ou

CRIMINALAPPLICATIONNO.592OF2015
IN
CRIMINALAPPEALNO.572OF2015

rt

APPELLATESIDE

CRIMINALAPPEALNO.572OF2015
Applicant

ig
h

SalmanSalimKhan ...
V/s.
StateofMaharashtra...

Respondent

om

ba
y

.....
Mr.Harish Salve SeniorAdvocate withMr.ShrikantShivadewith
Mr.Niranjan MundargiwithMr.AnandDesaiwithMr.NiravShah
withMs.ChandrimaMitrawithMr.ManharS.Saini,Advocatefor
theApplicant.
Mr.S.S.Shinde,PublicProsecutorwithMr.DeepakThakre,APPfor
theRespondent.
....
CORAM: ABHAYM.THIPSAYJ.
DATED: 6THMAY2015

P.C.:

1.

This appeal, which has been filed today, has been

placedonboardonbeingmentionedforproductionontheground
of urgency. The appellant has been convicted of offences
punishable underSections304PartIIoftheIndianPenalCode
(IPC), 338 of the IPC, 337 of the IPC and offences punishable
under Motor Vehicles Act. He has been sentenced to different
termsofImprisonmentinrespectofvariousoffencesofwhichhe

Gaikwad RD

1/3
::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2015 20:18:56 :::

pro.1.APPANo.5922015.doc

hasbeenfoundguilty. Themostseveresentenceimposedupon
the applicant/appellant is in respect of the offence punishable

rt

under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, which is of Rigorous

C
ou

Imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years and fine of


Rs.25,000/.TheJudgmentofthetrialCourthasbeendelivered
todayitself.
2.

Theurgencyinthematterisarisingoutofthefactthat

ig
h

theappellant,whowasthroughoutonbail,islikelytobetakenin
custody, on conviction. It is submitted that though the
applicant/appellant has been convicted, copy of the impugned
Judgmenthadnotbeendeliveredtohimyet.Thatthecopyisnot

sodelivered,isnotindispute.

Mr.S.K.Shinde,the learned Public Prosecutor submits

ba
y

3.

thatappealisnotcompetent,inasmuchas,itisnotaccompanied
byacopyoftheimpugnedJudgment.Thoughthisappearstobe
correct, in view of the admitted position that the copy of the

om

impugned judgment had not been delivered to the


applicant/appellant at all, it would not be proper to deny the

urgentreliefsoughtforbytheappellant,whichisinthenatureof
continuation of his bail for some further period. This is
particularlyso,becausetheCourttimeisgettingover;andeven
otherwise,itwouldnotbepossibletohearelaborateargumentson
themeritsoftheconviction,withoutknowingthecontentsofthe
JudgmentdeliveredbythetrialCourt.

Gaikwad RD

2/3
::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2015 20:18:56 :::

pro.1.APPANo.5922015.doc

4.

Sincetheapplicant/appellantwasonbailthroughout

thetrial,andsinceacopyoftheimpugnedjudgmentofconviction

5.

C
ou

theappellantforsometimeintheinterestofjustice.

rt

hasnotyetbeenfurnishedtohim,itwouldbepropertoprotect

On hearing Mr.Harish Salve, the learned counsel for

theapplicant/appellant,itappearsthatthereisapossibilityofthe
appellantsecuringacopyofthejudgmentby8thMay2015.

Inviewofthis,itisdirectedthattheappealbelisted

ig
h

6.

onboard,foradmission,on8thMay2015.

In the meantime, the applicant/ appellant shall be

7.

permitted to remain on the same bail as was granted to him

ba
y

during the trial, but on executing a fresh bond before the trial
Court.
8.

Allconcernedtoactonanauthenticatedcopyofthis

om

Order.
9.

Leavetoamendtheappealmemobyannexingacopy

of the judgment as soon as it is made available and also by


incorporatingadditionalgrounds,ifsodesired.

(ABHAYM.THIPSAYJ.)

Gaikwad RD

3/3
::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2015 20:18:56 :::