Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusSEEMA D/O. BHAGWAN RAUT @ SEEMA W/O. SANJAY WAKHARE AND ANR
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The revision application was dismissed as it served no purpose in view of the acquittal of the main accused on the same evidence.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed a criminal revision (Application No. 97 of 2018) challenging an order dated 9 January 2018 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, which had allowed the discharge of accused Nos. 3 and 4 in Sessions Case No. 38/2016. During the pendency of the revision, the main accused Nos. 1 and 2 were acquitted on 25 May 2023, and the State submitted that the evidence against the acquitted accused was identical to that against the respondents in the present revision. The Court examined whether the revision retained any purpose in light of the acquittal and the overlapping evidence. It held that allowing the revision would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate disposition of a revision application seeking to set aside a discharge order when the main accused have subsequently been acquitted on identical evidence?
Subjects
- criminal revision
- discharge application
- acquittal
- evidence
- procedural futility
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:37724
97.18revn
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
918 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 97 OF 2018
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
SEEMA D/O. BHAGWAN RAUT @ SEEMA W/O. SANJAY
WAKHARE AND ANR
…..
Mr S. G. Sangle, APP for Applicant/State
Ms Ashwini P. Patil, Advocate h/f Mr S. J. Salunke, Advocate for
Respondents
…..
CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026
P. C. :
1. Heard learned APP Mr Sangle for the applicant/State.
2. This is a revision application challenging the order dated
09/01/2018 below Exhibit 19, passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, Dist. Beed in Sessions Case No.38/2016,
thereby allowing the discharge application preferred by original
accused Nos.3 and 4.
3. Learned APP for the applicant/State fairly states that,
during the pendency of this revision application, main accused Nos.1
and 2 were acquitted vide order dated 25/05/2023. He, further submits
that the evidence in respect of the said acquitted accused persons is the
97.18revn
(2)
same as that regarding the respondents/accused person in this revision
application.
4. As no purpose will be served even if the instant revision
application is allowed, the same is being dismissed with no order as to
costs.
[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]
sjk
Checking your session…