Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Mirza Anwar Baig Ahmed Baig And Ors on 11 March, 2016
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 CRIREV-9.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 9 OF 2016
The State of Maharashtra
through PSO Bhagyanagar Police
Station, Nanded ... Applicant
(Ori. Respondent)
Versus
1. Mirza Anwar Baig Ahmed Baig
Age: 42 years,
R/o: Daveshnagar, Nanded
2. Rahemankhan Yusuf Khan
Age: 40 years,
R/o. Umar Colony, Nanded
3. Gousiya Raheman Khan
Age: 40 years,
R/o. Osmanpura, District Nanded ... Respondents
(Ori.Accused)
.....
Mr. G. O. Wattamwar, Assistant Public Prosecutor for applicant
Mr. Rahemankhan Yusuf Khan (respondent No.2) Party-in-person
.....
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 11th MARCH, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Despite service, no appearance is caused on behalf of
respondents No. 1 and 3.
2 CRIREV-9.16
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
with consent of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and party-in-
person.
3. This revision application has been moved by the State for
quashing of order dated 06-11-2015 on Exhibit-136 in Sessions
Case No. 90 of 2013 passed by Ad-hoc Additional Sessions
Judge, Nanded, whereby request of the prosecution seeking to
call witnesses Mr. S. P. Nandanwankar who has conducted partial
investigation and Mr. S. K. Bendali, Medical Officer who has
conducted the postmortem for examination, has been turned
down.
4. Application Exhibit-136 purportedly has been moved under
Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The prosecution
had earlier on made a similar application seeking to call
aforesaid witnesses for examination before the court. Though
several opportunities were given the prosecution failed to
examine the aforesaid witnesses. The evidence was closed and
the matter was posted for recording of statement of the accused
under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. At this stage,
application Exhibit-136 was moved by the prosecution which was
resisted by accused No.2 by filing say referring to that
application filed by the prosecution summoning the witnesses
3 CRIREV-9.16
had been rejected earlier on by the court and no new ground is
made out in the present application.
5. The trial court vide order dated 06-11-2015 rejected the
application Exhibit-136 observing that similar application was
moved earlier on by the prosecution which was rejected and no
new ground is made out in the application and despite being
given several opportunities the prosecution failed to examine the
witnesses. The trial court further observed that time limit of two
months is given by the High Court to dispose of the case.
6. However, considering the fact that these two witnesses
may be material and their evidence may be necessary to reach a
just conclusion and that the revision application is not seriously
resisted by accused No.2 and non appearance of accused No. 1
and 3 to some extent indicates that they do not want to resist
the application, I deem it appropriate and expedient to allow the
criminal revision application in the interest of justice.
7. Having regard to aforesaid, the criminal revision
application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (C) and disposed
of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. As such, application
Exhibit-136 shall be considered to have been allowed.
4 CRIREV-9.16
8. At this stage, party-in-person - respondent No.2,
earnestly requests that the trial may be expedited.
9. Having regard to that the case is of 2013, it would be
expedient that Sessions Case No. 90 of 2013 be taken up for
expeditious disposal and be dealt with and dispose of in
accordance with law, preferably within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of writ of this order.
( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. )
sms
