State of Maharashtra vs Mahesh Kariman Tirki

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 963

M. R. SHAH, C. T. RAVIKUMAR
State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Mahesh Kariman Tirki – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. S.V. Raju, ASG, Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Advocate, Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocate, Mr. Hrishikesh Chitalay, Advocate, Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Advocate, Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Advocate, Mr. Bharat Bagla, Advocate, Mr. Saurav Singh, Advocate, Mr. Suyog Despande, Advocate, Mr. Pratush Shrivastava, Advocate, Mr. Vijay Kari Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Shadan Farasat, Advocate, Mr. Ashwath Sitaraman, Advocate, Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Advocate, Ms. Nitya Mehrotra, Advocate, Ms. Hrishika Jain, Advocate, Ms. Mreganka Kukreja, Advocate, Mr. Aman Naqvi, Advocate, Ms. Natasha Maheshwari, Advocate, Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Jawahar Raja, Advocate, Mr. N. Sai Vinod, Advocate, Mr. Archit Krishna, Advocate, Mr. Barun Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Akshay Sahay, Advocate, Mrs. Varsha Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment(s) and order(s) dated 14.10.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal Nos. 136 & 137 of 2017, by which the High Court has allowed the said Appeals preferred by the accused-respondents, the State has preferred the present Appeals.

3. Shri S.V. Raju, learned ASG, has appeared on behalf of the appellant-State of Maharashtra and Shri R. Basant and Ms. Nithya Ramakrishnan, learned Senior Advocates and Mr. Shadan Farasat, learned Advocate have appeared on behalf of the respective accusedrespondents herein.

4. As by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has discharged/acquitted the accused solely on the ground of invalid sanction and in absence of sanction in the case of one of the accused and the High Court has not at all considered and/or decided the Appeals on merits, learned Senior Advocates/Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused have stated at the Bar that they have no objection if the impugned common judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the High Court to decide t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 963

M. R. SHAH, C. T. RAVIKUMARState of Maharashtra – AppellantVersusMahesh Kariman Tirki – Respondent

M. R. SHAH, C. T. RAVIKUMAR
State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Mahesh Kariman Tirki – Respondent