Bombay High Court
State Of Mah. Thr. P.S.O. Kamptee vs Rameshkumar Bali on 13 July, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
J-apl49&revn 148.11.11.odt 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.49 OF 2011
Sulekhatai d/o. Narayanrao Kumbhare,
Aged about 51 years,
Occupation : Advocate,
R/o. Hardas Nagar, Kamptee,
Distt. Nagpur. : PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Kamptee, Distt. Nagpur.
2. Rameshkumar Bali,
Aged about 55 years,
Occupation : Labour,
R/o. Futana Oli, Kamptee,
Distt. Nagpur. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri Y.B. Mandpe, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri S.J. Kadu, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1.
Shri A.A. Sonak, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
AND
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.148 OF 2011
State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Kamptee, Distt. Nagpur. : PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:12:31 :::
J-apl49&revn 148.11.11.odt 2/6
Rameshkumar Bali,
Aged about 55 years,
Occupation : Labour,
R/o. Futana Oli,
Kamptee, Distt. Nagpur. : RESPONDENT
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri S.J. Kadu, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Petitioner.
Shri A.A. Sonak, Advocate for the Respondent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
ig DATE : 13 th
JULY, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent.
2. Both these criminal applications challenged the same order
dated 19.10.2010, rejecting the application for grant of permission to file
documents on record and the application under Section 311 of the
Criminal Procedure Code to recall the witness. The basis of second order
rejecting the application filed for recalling of the witness is the first order
dated 19.10.2010, whereby application for grant of permission to file
additional documents on record has been rejected. Therefore, it would
be appropriate to first consider this order.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant in Criminal Application
No.49/2011 and learned A.P.P. for the applicant in Criminal Revision
No.148/2011 submit that these orders are erroneous and illegal
J-apl49&revn 148.11.11.odt 3/6
inasmuch as seriously prejudice the right of complainant to conduct her
case against the respondent No.2 properly. Learned counsel for
respondent No.2 submits that these orders are correctly passed and there
is no need to make any interference with the same.
4. On perusal of the first order dated 19.10.2010, I find that it
is based upon an erroneous assumption that it is not mentioned in the
application that there was any prior effort made by the original
informant or the Investigating Officer to collect the documents. A
specific reference as having been made in this regard could be seen in the
application. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also found that
relevancy of these documents is not stated in the application. It is true
that no specific ground of relevancy of these documents is taken in the
application. But, in such a case, it was also the duty of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, to have perused the contents of the
documents sought to be produced on record by the
prosecution/complainant. This is for the reason that Criminal Court does
not work on the principles of meticulous pleadings like a Civil Court.
The Criminal Court while administering justice, has to take into
consideration not only the contentions of the parties, but also the
contents of the documents so as to consider the overall effect of all the
facts and circumstances of the case. This has not been done by the
Additional Sessions Judge. So it is now left to this Court to perform that
J-apl49&revn 148.11.11.odt 4/6
role.
5. On perusal of the documents, which are at Annexures
B,C,D,E,F & G, I find that they pertain to the previous complaints made
by the respondent No.2 against the complainant and that they reflect
upon the conduct of the complainant. These documents also show that
subsequently those complaints were withdrawn by the respondent No.2.
Therefore, these documents are relevant from the view point of the case
of the complainant against the respondent No.2. In these circumstances,
I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have allowed
the application seeking permission of the Court to file documents on
record vide Exh.78. The order rejecting this application passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge is illegal and perverse and, therefore,
it cannot be sustained in law.
6. After having found that the order passed below Exh.-78
cannot be sustained in law, the order subsequently passed on the same
day of 19.10.2010 rejecting the application of the complainant (Exh.-77)
for recalling of the witnesses under Section 311 of the Criminal
Procedure Code would also have to be seen as perverse and illegal and it
must go. At the same time, sufficient opportunity will have to be given
to respondent No.2 to cross-examine the witnesses.
7. In the result, Criminal Application (APL) No.49/2011 and
Criminal Revision Application No.148/2011 are allowed.
J-apl49&revn 148.11.11.odt 5/6
8. The impugned orders dated 19.10.2010 passed below Exh.-
77 and 19.10.2010 passed below Exh.-78 are hereby quashed and set
aside.
9. Applications vide Exh.-78 as well as application vide Exh.-77
are allowed.
10. Documents be taken on record and allowed to be proved in
evidence in accordance with law.
11. Additional evidence, in terms of application vide Exh.-77 is
permitted.
12. The respondent No.2 shall be given sufficient opportunity to
cross-examine the witnesses in accordance with law.
13. The applications are disposed of in above terms.
JUDGE
okMksns
J-apl49&revn 148.11.11.odt 6/6
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 : 18.7.2016.
