Ganesh S/O. Bhagwan Khadse vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. ...

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 8737 Bom
Judgement Date : 15 November, 2017

Bombay High Court
Ganesh S/O. Bhagwan Khadse vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. ... on 15 November, 2017
Bench: R.P. Mohite-Dere
WP  1063/17                                         1                              Judgment

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1063/2017

Ganesh s/o Bhagwan Khadse,
Aged - major, Occu: Service,
R/o. Bhishi, Tq. Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur.                                     PETITIONER



                                   .....VERSUS.....

State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O. Bhishi,
Tq. Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur.                                               RESPONDENT



Mr. Mahesh Rai, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Shyam Bissa, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.



                                        CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
                                         DATE        :          15  TH     NOVEMBER,   2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT 



              RULE.    Rule is made returnable forthwith.   The petition is

heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and taken up for final disposal.

2. By this petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 05.10.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Warora, below Exhibit 76 in Special Case No.15/2016, by which the petitioner's application for exhibiting the document was rejected. ::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2017 01:57:39 :::

WP 1063/17 2 Judgment

3. Mr.Mahesh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judge had erred in law by rejecting the application of the petitioner, being Exhibit 76. He submitted that the learned Judge ought to have exhibited the document (xerox copy referred to by the defence counsel during the cross-examination of PW1) in view of the answers given by PW1 vis-a-vis the said document.

4. Mr.Shyam Bissa, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. He submitted that when PW1 was confronted with the xerox copy of a document in her cross-examination, the said document was not exhibited and that the learned Judge rightly observed that the said objection would be decided at the time of final arguments. He submitted that as such, there was no necessity for the petitioner to file an application (Exhibit 76) for exhibiting the said document prior to final arguments.

5. Perused the papers and the impugned order dated 05.10.2017. It appears that in the cross-examination of PW1, certain answers were elicited in the cross-examination vis-a-vis one document (xerox copy of the document). Pursuant to certain admissions elicited in the cross-examination, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested the Court to exhibit the said document (xerox copy), as the witness (PW1) had admitted her signature and that the contents therein were in ::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2017 01:57:40 ::: WP 1063/17 3 Judgment her own handwriting. In view of the objection raised by the A.P.P., the learned Judge observed that the said objection may be decided at the time of final arguments. It is informed that the evidence is closed and the matter is posted for final arguments. It appears that before the final arguments commenced, the petitioner preferred an application for exhibiting the document (xerox copy), referred to by the defence counsel, during the cross-examination of PW1, in view of certain admissions that were elicited in the cross-examination. The said application (Exhibit 76) was resisted by the learned A.P.P. The learned Magistrate, after hearing both the parties, rejected the said application (Exhibit 76) preferred by the petitioner. It may be noted, that the learned Judge had on 10.03.2017 observed, that the said objection would be decided at the time of final arguments, yet proceeded to decide the said application (Exhibit 76) prior thereto.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.10.2017 is quashed and set aside. The learned Sessions Judge shall decide the objection of the A.P.P. vis-a-vis the exhibiting of the document, on its own merits again, at the time of final arguments, after hearing both the parties uninfluenced by the earlier order dated 05.10.2017. All contentions of both the parties are kept open. Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms.

::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2017 01:57:40 :::

WP 1063/17 4 Judgment

7. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

JUDGE APTE ::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2017 01:57:40 :::