1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 366 OF 2009 Shri. Shravan Kushaba Gaikwad .. Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Anilkumar Patil for the applicant Miss A.T. Javeri, APP for State CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATE : 10th JULY, 2009 P.C.: 1. Rule. Learned APP waves service for the respondent. 2. The applicant / accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304A, 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal against order of conviction filed by the revision applicant has been dismissed by the learned Adhoc Additional Session Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 01st April 2009. 3. Apart from the submissions on merits made by the learned Rma rev366­09.sxw 2 counsel appearing for the applicant, I find that the substantive appeal against the order of conviction has been decided by the learned ad­hoc Additional Sessions Judge in most unsatisfactory manner. In the judgment, the learned Judge has noted that there were seven prosecution witnesses examined. The prosecution witness no. 5 claimed that he was in the tractor when the incident occurred. P.W.2 and P.W 3 have also deposed as regards the status of the tractor and trolley after the incident. The reasoning recorded by the learned Judge runs into two pages. The reasoning shows that there is absolutely no consideration of oral evidence of seven prosecution witnesses. What has been really considered by the learned Judge is only the spot panchanama. The appeal against the conviction could not have been disposed of without considering the deposition of prosecution witnesses and the other material on record. The appeal has been disposed of in slipshod manner. In the circumstances, I pass the following order: O R D E R 1. The impugned judgment and order dated 1st April 2009 is quashed and set aside and the Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2008 is Rma rev366­09.sxw 3 restored to file of the Sessions Court. 2. The Sessions Court will hear and decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in this order. 3. The interim protection which was granted to the applicant during pendency of appeal will continue to operate till the disposal of appeal. 4. Revision application is dispoed of in above terms. JUDGE Rma rev366­09.sxw 4 Rma rev366­09.sxw