Rahul S/O Sudhakar Wankhede vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4547 Bom

            J-apl480.16.odt                                                                                                     1/3


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                                             
                                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                                              
                          CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.480 OF 2016


            Shri Rahul s/o. Sudhakar Wankhede,




                                                                             
            Aged about 30 years,
            Occupation : Labour,
            R/o. Lawasa, Tq. Mangrulpir,
            Distt. Washim.                                                               :      APPLICANT




                                                          
                               ...VERSUS...

            State of Maharashtra,
                                 
            Through Police Station Officer,
            P.S. Mangrulpir, Distt. Washim.                                               :      NON-APPLICANT
                                
            =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
            Shri C.F. Bhagwani, Advocate for the Applicant.
            Shri A.M. Deshpande, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Non-applicant.
      

            =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
   



                                                          CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.

th DATE : 8 AUGUST, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel

appearing for the parties.

2. This application has been strongly opposed by learned A.P.P.

However, considering the grounds taken in the application filed for grant

of adjournment and also the fact that the learned counsel could not

attend the Court on the date on which evidence of the victim was to be

J-apl480.16.odt 2/3

recorded and also the fact that no prejudice, in the facts and

circumstances of this particularly the case, was going to be caused to the

other side, I am of the view that the trial Court ought to have allowed the

application filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in

the interest of justice. The impugned order being oblivious to these

considerations would have to be quashed and set aside.

3. The application is allowed.

4. The impugned order dated 27.6.2016, passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, is hereby quashed and set aside,

subject to penalty of Rs.15,000/- to be paid within two weeks from the

date of order to the Washim District Legal Services Authority .

5. The application filed for recalling PW 1- complainant for

further cross-examination is allowed. If any request is made for

re-examination of the witness, it shall be considered in accordance with

law.

                                               
                                                                                                          JUDGE





    okMksns





             J-apl480.16.odt                                                                                                     3/3




                                                            CERTIFICATE




                                                                                                             

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

copy of original signed Judgment."

Uploaded by : D.W. Wadode, P.A.

Uploaded on : 11.8.2016.