Ramchandra S/O Kawdu Dasheria vs State Of Maharashtra Through The ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1766 Bom

                                             1                                            apl429.15




                                                                                      
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     




                                                              
                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


     CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.429 OF 2015




                                                             
     Ramchandra s/o Kawdu Dasheria,
     Aged about 47 years, Occupation - Teacher, 
     R/o Sonpuri, Taluka Salekasa, District-




                                                
     Gondia.                                                           ....       APPLICANT


      
                             
                            VERSUS
                            
     State of Maharashtra, 
     through Police Station Officer,
     Police Station, Salekasa, District-Gondia.                        ....   NON-APPLICANT
      


     ______________________________________________________________
   



                 Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the applicant, 
       Shri R.S. Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant.
      ______________________________________________________________





                                   CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 22 nd APRIL, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the applicant and

Shri R.S. Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2 apl429.15

3. The applicant (accused) has challenged the order passed

by the Sessions Court allowing the application (Exhibit No.24) filed by

the complainant.

4. According to the applicant (accused), the impugned order

is unsustainable as the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction to permit the

prosecution to record statements of witnesses once the prosecution is

committed to the Sessions Court.

5. Shri R.S. Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor states that

the prosecution does not intend to record the statements of the

witnesses but in fact the witnesses are to be examined before the Court

and their names are already submitted earlier. The learned Additional

Public Prosecutor has argued that the Court has power under Section

311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the prosecution to

examine witnesses. The legal position as per Section 311 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure is not disputed by the learned Advocate for the

applicant.

6. Hence, the following order :

i) The impugned order is modified/clarified and it is directed

3 apl429.15

that the non-applicant cannot record statements of the

witnesses, however, the witnesses shall be permitted to be

examined in the trial before the Sessions Court.

ii) The application is disposed accordingly.

JUDGE

pma