1 appln1893.10.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1893/2010
Rikabchand s/o Rupchand Sawala,
aged 62 years, Occ. Business,
r/o Ner, Tq. Ner, Dist. Yavatmal. .....APPLICANT
...V E R S U S...
1. Puranlal s/o Kashiprasad Rai,
aged about 54 years, occ. Business,
r/o Sambhaji Nagar, Bharati Apartment,
Darwha Road, Yavatmal, Tq. Dist. Yavatmal.
2. State of Maharashtra thr. PSO
Yavatmal, Tq. Dist. Yavatmal. ...NON APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. V. Bhide, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. R. S. Nayak, A.P.P. for non applicant no.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- 04.09.2017 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. A.V. Bhide, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. R. S. Nayak, A.P.P. for non applicant no.2-State. Counsel for the non applicant chose not to remain present when the matter is called out.
2. A complaint was filed by the non applicant no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments ::: Uploaded on - 05/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2017 02:04:01 ::: 2 appln1893.10.odt Act. The said complaint was registered as Summary Criminal Case No.4474/2006. Evidence in the complaint case has commenced. The evidence of the complainant was over. Thereafter, the present applicant examined one Mr.Ashok Jachak as defence witness. However, he has turned hostile on 14.07.2010. On 20.07.2010, an application was moved on behalf of the present applicant/ accused for recalling of said witness Ashok. The said application is at Exh.-140. The application was contested by the complainant. Prior to the recording of the evidence of Ashok, an application below Exh.-132 was moved by the accused by which the transcription of the conversation in between Rahul, son of the accused and the resiled witness Ashok was allowed to be brought on record. Thus, on 14.07.2010 when Ashok had turned hostile, the said transcription was already available on record. The reason for recalling of Ashok is cited by the accused is for confronting him with the conversation in between Rahul and him. The application, in my view, appears was filed only to protract the trial. Since, the conversation for which Ashok was required to be recalled was already available and he could have confronted with the said conversation, when he was in witness box.
::: Uploaded on - 05/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2017 02:04:01 :::
3 appln1893.10.odt
3. In that view of the matter, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, in my view, has rightly rejected the said application and the said aspect was correctly evaluated by the learned revisional Court and found that the revision was meritless and therefore on 04.10.2010, the revision was rightly dismissed.
4. After noticing the aforesaid, in my view, no case is made out by the applicant. The complaint is stayed for last seven years. The application is dismissed. The orders passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned revisional Court are upheld. The interim order granted by this Court stands vacated.
Since the complaint is of year 2006, it is expected from the learned Magistrate that he will give preference for early disposal of this complaint and the parties shall extend their full cooperation.
Rule is discharged.
JUDGE kahale ::: Uploaded on - 05/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2017 02:04:01 :::