Bombay High Court
Ganesh S/O Pralhad Shegole vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 2 April, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp908.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.908/2015
Ganesh s/o Pralhad Shejole,
aged about 45 Yrs., Occu. Business,
R/o Gourkhed, Tah. Shegaon,
Distt. Buldhana. ..Petitioner.
..Versus..
State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Shegaon,
Tq. Shegaon, Distt. Buldhana ..Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------
Shri S.D. Chopde, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri S.B. Bissa, A.P.P. for the respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 2.4.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri S.D. Chopde, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri S.B. Bissa,
A.P.P. for the respondent.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner - accused has challenged the order passed by the learned
Magistrate rejecting the application filed by the petitioner - accused seeking
permission to file on record certified copy of the judgment passed in Special Civil
2 wp908.15
Suit No.10/2010.
The prosecution is initiated against the petitioner on the complaint of
Shrikrishna Ramlal Tarapure that the petitioner has committed theft of 300 trucks
murum from agricultural land of the complainant. Shrikrishna Ramlal Tarapure had
filed Special Civil Suit No.10/2010 contending that the petitioner had committed theft
of about 300 truck loads of murum amounting to Rs.2,10,000/- from the agricultural
land owned by him and prayed for decree for Rs.9,000,00/-. The civil suit is
dismissed by the trial Court by the judgment dated 11 th October, 2013.
The petitioner filed application in the criminal case seeking permission to file
on the record, the certified copy of the judgment passed by the civil Court. This
application is rejected by the learned Magistrate by the impugned order.
The learned Magistrate has recorded that the petitioner - accused is seeking
permission to file judgment of the civil case which is totally different and has no
relevance. The learned advocate for the petitioner has pointed out the copy of the
judgment passed in Special Civil Suit No.10/2010, which is placed on the record and
it shows that the contentions of the plaintiff in that civil suit were same as in the
criminal complaint.
Though the learned A.P.P. has supported the impugned order, he has not
been able to substantiate that the copy of judgment passed in Special Civil Suit
No.10/2010 is not relevant for the purposes of deciding the point in that criminal
case. Considering the facts on the record, I am of the view that the impugned order
3 wp908.15
is unsustainable.
4. Hence, the following order:
(i) The impugned order is set aside.
(ii) The application filed by the petitioner accused seeking permission to file on
the record the certified copy of judgment passed in Special Civil Suit No.10/2010 is
allowed.
(iii) The certified copy of judgment passed in Special Civil Suit No.10/2010 be
taken on the record of Regular Criminal Case No.62/2010.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(v) In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
