GAUTAM vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA HOME DEPARTMENT CHIEF SECRETARY — Crl.A. No. 1616/2009
Case under Section II-A. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010237212008
Filing Date
19-Aug-2008
Registration No
Crl.A. No. 1616/2009
Diary Number
23721/2008
Order Date
06-Dec-2018
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Disposed Off
Last updated 05-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.GAUTAM
Adv. SHASHIBHUSHAN P. ADGAONKAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA HOME DEPARTMENT CHIEF SECRETARY
Adv. NISHANT RAMAKANTRAO KATNESHWARKAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-Dec-2018
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Dec-2018
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra
-
05-Dec-2018
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra
-
29-Nov-2018
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
29-Nov-2018
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra
-
01-Nov-2018
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Feb-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
20-Feb-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
25-Nov-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
25-Nov-2014
Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF
-
25-Nov-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
30-Jul-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
26-Mar-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Mar-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
15-Feb-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Aug-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-May-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
20-Apr-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
26-Mar-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
11-Feb-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
11-Sep-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
19-Aug-2008
Case filed
Registration No. Crl.A. No. 1616/2009
Summary: The Supreme Court dismissed Gautam's criminal appeal on December 6, 2018. The appellant's counsel argued that Gautam had already served approximately 17 years of actual jail sentence and had been released on remission by Maharashtra State according to remission rules. The Court found the appeal infructuous and did not examine the merits of the case, dismissing it accordingly. All pending applications were also disposed of. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts