Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra, Through ... vs Bijendrasingh S/O Bhagwantsingh ... on 21 September, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
J-cwp477.15.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.477 OF 2015
State of Maharashtra,
through Police Inspector,
Sadar Police Station, Nagpur. : PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. Vijendrasingh s/o. Bhagwantsingh Rawat,
Chief General Manager (Finance).
2. Ajaykumar R. Shriwastava,
Deputy General Manager,
Both R/o. Mineral Exploration
Corporation Ltd., Seminary Hills,
Nagpur.
Correction carried 1. Vijendrasingh s/o. Bhagwantsingh Rawat,
carried out as per R/o. 310, Banjara Wala, Tea Estate,
order dt.5.10.2015
Distt. Deharadun-Uttarakhand-248001.
2. Ajaykumar Shrivastava,
R/o. Flat No.401, Kukreja Krishnan,
Plot No.798-A, Sector No.40,
Kopar Khairane, New Mumbai-400 079. : RESPONDENTS
AND
Manohar Maroti Sahare,
Age 66 Years,
Senior citizen Retired,
R/o. New Thaware Colony,
Nagpur-444 014. : INTERVENOR
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri N.R. Patil, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Petitioner.
Shri M.S. Samel, Advocate for the Respondents.
Intervenor in person.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:04:38 :::
J-cwp477.15.odt 2/5
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
th
DATE : 21
SEPTEMBER, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent.
2. Learned A.P.P. for the petitioner/State submits that the
impugned order is illegal and perverse and it has caused serious
prejudice to the prosecution. Shri Sahare, the intervenor who appears in
person also submits that the impugned order has caused prejudice to the
rights of the intervenor. He submits that further opportunities were
required to be given by the trial Court to the prosecution to produce the
witnesses before the trial Court. According to the learned counsel for the
respondents, the order itself shows that several opportunities have been
given to the prosecution and none of them has been availed of by the
prosecution and, therefore, now the prosecution or the complainant
cannot say that the impugned order would cause any prejudice to the
rights of the prosecution or the complainant.
3. Upon perusal of the order, I find that the learned counsel for
the respondent is right. The order notes the occasions on which the
applications filed by the prosecution for summoning the witnesses and
granting time to secure the presence of the witnesses, were allowed by
J-cwp477.15.odt 3/5
the trial Court. All these dates disclose that several opportunities have
been given to the prosecution and yet the prosecution did not avail of
any of them. It is also seen that the trial of the respondents under the
provisions of the Atrocities Act is pending since the year 1999.
Therefore, no one would dispute that now the time has come for
expeditiously disposing of the trial of the case. But, the prosecution, it
seems, has not understood the urgency of the matter. No criminal trial
can be kept pending for an indefinite period of time. It must come to an
end and, therefore, the order passed by the trial Court impugned in this
petition cannot be seen to be illegal or perverse or arbitrary especially
when several opportunities have already been given to the prosecution.
4. However, as submitted by the intervenor, one more
opportunity could be given to the intervenor to secure the presence of
the witnesses and it could be in the nature that the intervenor may file
an application through learned A.P.P. before the trial Court seeking
permission to adduce the evidence of witnesses on the condition that he
keeps present the witnesses on that date before the trial Court.
5. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty
is given to the intervenor to make an application before the trial Court
for granting permission to record the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses, subject to the condition that on the date the application that is
to be made, if any, the witnesses shall remain present on that date before
J-cwp477.15.odt 4/5
the trial Court and the application is to be made in this regard within two
weeks from the date of order. If any such application is made the trial
Court shall decide it in accordance with law. If any such application is
made it's copy be supplied to the respondent at least two days before
filing of the application. If no such application is made within the time
given, the trial Court shall proceed in the matter in terms of the order
impugned in this petition and dispose of the case in accordance with law
within two months thereafter.
Rule is discharged in the above terms.
JUDGE
okMksns
J-cwp477.15.odt 5/5
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 : 23.9.2016.
