Bombay High Court
Gangadhar S/O Kishanrao Matewad vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 November, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 Cr. W.P. 1465.2016 - [ J ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1465 OF 2016
Gangadhar s/o Kishanrao Metewad
Age : 54 Yrs., Occ. Service,
R/o : Pundlik Nagar,
Aurangabad. ig .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra .... RESPONDENT
.............................
Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. K.N.Lokhande, A.P.P. for Resp. - State.
..............................
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 18th NOVEMBER, 2016
.............................
2 Cr. W.P. 1465.2016 - [ J ]
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard Mr. Vijay Sharma, learned
Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. K.N.Lokhande,
learned A.P.P. for respondent - State.
ig The petitioner takes exception to the
order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, [Court No. 3], Kannad, District Aurangabad,
by which the applications filed by the
petitioner/accused seeking adjournment to cross
examine the prosecution witnesses are rejected and
as a consequence, the petitioner/accused has lost an
opportunity of cross examining the prosecution
witnesses.
3. Though, I find that the impugned order
does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction,
considering the proposition laid down in the
judgment given in the case of P.Sanjeeva Rao Vs.
3 Cr. W.P. 1465.2016 - [ J ]
State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2012) 7
Supreme Court Cases - 56, and the facts of the
present case, the following order is passed to sub-
serve the ends of justice.
(i) Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
[Court No. 3], Kannad, District Aurangabad shall give
an opportunity to the petitioner/accused to cross
examine the prosecution witnesses.
(ii) Learned Advocate for the
petitioner/accused undertakes on behalf of the
petitioner/accused that the cross examination of the
prosecution witnesses will be completed within two
months. It is further assured on behalf of the
petitioner/accused that the cross examination of the
prosecution witnesses will be conducted on the date
fixed by the learned Magistrate and the
petitioner/accused will not seek adjournment on any
ground.
(iii) If the petitioner/accused fails to cross
4 Cr. W.P. 1465.2016 - [ J ]
examine the prosecution witnesses on the day on
which they are present, petitioner/accused will not
be entitled to cross examine the prosecution
witnesses and the learned Magistrate shall proceed
further in the matter.
(iv) The Magistrate shall take necessary steps
in the matter to recall the witnesses/secure their
presence.
(v) Petitioner/accused shall pay costs of
` 10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand] to the respondent
- State within one week from today and produce the
receipt on the record before the learned Magistrate.
If the receipt showing payment of cost is not
produced on the record before the learned Magistrate
within one week, this order shall stand recalled and
the learned Magistrate may proceed with the matter
according to law.
If the amount of costs is not accepted on
behalf of the respondent - State for some reason,
the petitioner/accused shall deposit the amount of
5 Cr. W.P. 1465.2016 - [ J ]
costs before the learned Magistrate within one week.
[vi] Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
[Z.A.HAQ, J.]
KNP/Cr. W.P. 1465.2016 - [ J ]
