1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2511 OF 2001 Adel Eruchshaw Engineer ...Applicant vs State of Maharashtra (at the instance of Lonavala Police station) ...Respondent Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar for the petitioner Mr.H.J.Dedhia,A.P.P for State CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 14, 2009 JUDGMENT : 1 The submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant were heard yesterday. As the concerned Public Prosecutor was not available yesterday, the application was adjourned till today. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The applicant has filed this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 for quashing the criminal proceedings against him. 2 The applicant along with the co-accused Gulistan Kersi Mehta and Meher Nosh Keki Rivetna were charged with the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant claimed to be a British citizen who has been residing abroad for last 40 years. The applicant was shown absconding and the trial proceeded against two co- 2 accused. By a Judgment and Order dated 21st May 2001, the co-accused were acquitted. The learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding that the deceased had not died homicidal death. While passing the order of acquittal, the learned Sessions Judge directed that a separate charge sheet be filed against the applicant after he is traced out. It must be stated here that the State preferred an appeal against the said order of acquittal which was decided by the Division Bench of this court by order dated 27th February 2009. The Division Bench referred to the post mortem notes and the medical certificate on record of the trial court. This court accepted the opinion expressed that the death of the deceased was due to injuries sustained by falling from bed. The Division Bench accepted the view taken by the trial court that the death was not proved to be homicidal one and held that the said view is correct. 3 The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that in view of the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge which has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, now the applicant cannot be prosecuted for the same offence in connection with the C.R.No.27 of 1999. 4 Perusal of the Judgment of the Sessions Court shows that the entire evidence has been extensively considered. 3 In paragraph 23 of the Judgment, after considering the evidence of P.W.1 Dr.Agrawal and P.W.10 Dr.Madhav Adelu Waghmare, the learned Judge recorded a finding that the deceased suffered injuries which were due to fall from bed and she died an accidental death. Therefore, the learned Judge held that the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. As stated earlier, the said view is confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. In view of the said finding which has attained finality, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted. 5 Hence, I pass the following order : i) The proceedings against the applicant on the basis of the C.R.no.27 of 2004 registered with Lonavala Rural Police Station, Pune are quashed and set aside. ii) Application is accordingly allowed. Bail bonds stand canceled. JUDGE