Vinayak S/O Narayanrao ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. A.C.B. ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4332 Bom

     apl432.16.odt                                                                                                                 1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                                                                                     
               CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 432 OF 2016




                                                                                    
                Vinayak Narayanrao Kanchanwar
                aged about 60 yrs., Occp. Retd.,




                                                                                   
                r/o Beldar Nagar,
                Nagpur.                     ::                                                    APPLICNAT

                         .. Versus
                                   ..




                                                               
                State of Maharashtra
                through Anti Corruption Bureau,
                Nagpur.                    ::                                                  NON-APPLICANT
                                   
     ...................................................................................................................................
                                    Shri R. K. Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant.
                                          Shri R. S. Nayak, A.P.P. for the State.
     ...................................................................................................................................
      

                                                                   CORAM :  S. B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED : 01 AUGUST, 2016.

O R A L J U D G M E N T O R A L J U D G M E N T

1. Heard.

2. Admit.

3. Heard finally by consent.

4. From perusal of the statement of P.W.-3 Narendra Bhaurao

Thool recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it

is seen that he had clearly stated before the police that he and other

witnesses had started going towards Umred at 1.45 p.m. However, in

his examination-in-chief, he omitted to state the said time.

5. Proviso to Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code gives

liberty to the accused to contradict a witness in respect of what he has

stated before the police, of course, with due permission of the Court.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, has not considered

the true purport of Section 162 and, therefore, by disallowing the

learned Counsel to put the said contradiction to the witness, has

committed an illegality in the matter. The impugned order, therefore,

cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the application deserves to

be allowed.

The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside.

The contradiction sought to be put up before P.W.-3

Narendra Thool shall be permitted to be brought on record as per

Section 162 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and if required, the

witness shall be called for this limited purpose.

The application is allowed in the above terms.

JUDGE

wwl

CERTIFICATE

"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct

copy of original signed Judgment."

Uploaded by : W.W. Lichade, P.A.

Uploaded on :