P. P.

Order - Status 5: CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 99 OF 2012 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant vs. Avit @ Pintu Anant Bhole ...Respondent Mrs.U.V. Kejriwal, APP for the Applicant-State. CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. FEBRUARY 1, 2012 P.C. :- Heard the learned APP for the applicant. Rule, returnable on 21st March, 2012. In addition to court service, private service is also permitted. (A.V. POTDAR, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 9: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.99 OF 2012 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or orders or directions & Judge's orders. Registrar's orders. Ms Sangeeta D. Shinde, APP for the Applicant. Shri Pankaj D. Kavale for the Respondent. CORAM : A.S. OKA & SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ DATE : 21ST MARCH, 2012 P.C.: . Heard the learned APP for the Applicant and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent who has opposed this application. The delay of 28 days in preferring the application for leave to appeal has been adequately explained. Sufficient cause is made out. Delay is condoned. The Rule is accordingly made absolute. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J) (A.S.OKA, J)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.190 OF 2018 ..... .... The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant V/s. Shri.Mithun Balaso Sawant & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.S.V.Gavand, APP for the Applicant/State. CORAM : A.M.BADAR J. DATED : 20th JULY 2018. P.C. : 1 Issue notice to respondents returnable on 14th September 2018. (A.M.BADAR J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.190 OF 2018 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...APPLICANT V/s. MITHUN BALASO SAWANT AND ANR. )...RESPONDENTS Mrs.M.R.Tidke, APP for the Applicant – State. Mr.Sharad Mulik, Advocate for the Respondent State. CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 15th OCTOBER 2018 P.C. : 1 This is an application for condonation of delay in preferring an application for leave to appeal. What is sought to be challenged is acquittal of the respondents in Special Case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2 Heard the learned APP appearing for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. He argued that carelessness of the State is reflected from the fact that neither the name of the court nor the other particulars are properly mentioned in the instant application. The same is therefore liable to be rejected. 3 I have considered the submissions so advanced. The delay occurred is that of 21 days. Leaving apart the misdescription of the court and other particulars in the application, sufficient cause is shown for the short delay of 21 days in filing the application for leave to appeal. Hence, the order : ORDER i) The application is allowed. ii) The delay in filing the application for leave to appeal is condoned. iii) The application is accordingly disposed off. (A. M. BADAR, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 721 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra : Applicant. versus Ravindra Vitthal Gharat & ors. : Respondents. Mr P S Hingorani APP for the Applicant/State. COR CORAM : NARESH H PATIL & K U CHANDIWAL, JJ DAT Е: DATE : O7TH JULY 2011 P.C. 1 Heard. Perused the impugned judgment and the deposition of the witnesses placed on record by the learned APP. 2 Leave to file appeal is granted. Appeal is Admitted. 3 Action under Section 390 of the Criminal Procedure Code be taken. (K U CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 744 OF 2012 The State of Maharashtra Applicant vs. Prakash Uttareshwar Nanavare Respondent (orig. Accused) Ms. M.H.Mhatre, APP, for the Applicant-State. CORAM: SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV,J. DATE : 1 st April, 2013. P.C. Admit. Action under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, I direct that the Court before which the respondent is brought shall forthwith enlarge him on appropriate bail. (SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)