Judgment
apl390.17 1
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.390 OF 2017
Dr. Umakant s/o Janardan Anekar,
Aged about 66 years, Occupation Ex-Civil
Surgeon, R/o Khamla Road, Nagpur. ..... Applicant.
:: VERSUS ::
State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station, Chandrapur. ..... Non-applicant.
================================================================
Shri R.L. Khapre, Counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S. Nayak, Addl.P.P. for the State.
================================================================
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 18, 2017. ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. An application below Exhibit 372 was filed by the .....2/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:36:42 ::: Judgment apl390.17 1 2 applicant, who is an accused in Regular Criminal Case No.448 of 2004. The said application is under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. By filing the said application, the applicant sought production of documents, which according to the applicant are required for cross-examination. Those documents are mentioned at Annexure-15 of page No.113 of the compilation. The said application is rejected by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 21.1.2017. A revision was carried against the said order bearing Criminal Revision Application No.20 of 2017 which is also rejected.
3. Learned counsel Shri R.L. Khapre for the applicant submits that for effecting the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, documents mentioned at Annexure-15 of page No.113 of the compilation are absolutely .....3/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:36:42 ::: Judgment apl390.17 1 3 necessary.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri R.S. Nayak for the State points out that during the course of the investigation, none of the documents are seized by the prosecution nor those documents are relied by the prosecution.
5. Further, perusal of Annexure-15 at page No.113 of the compilation shows that the documents, which are sought to be supplied, are either publication by the Government of Maharashtra or Circulars issued by the Government. The reasoning given by learned Magistrate, that those documents are easily available, is correct. Further, for effecting the cross-examination, if the applicant wants a particular document, he cannot force the prosecution to file certain documents on record.
.....4/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:36:42 ::: Judgment apl390.17 1 4
6. Hence, the criminal application is rejected. Interim order granted by this Court stands vacated.
JUDGE !! BRW !! ...../-
::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2017 01:36:42 :::