Rohit Ambadas Dhakate vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1665 Bom

                                               1




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                                    NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



Criminal Writ Petition No. 30 of 2017



Petitioner               :          Rohit Ambadas Dhakate, aged about 38

                                    years, Occ: service, resident of Neelgagan

                                    Building, 401/402, In front of Borkar

                                    Hospital, Hudkeshwar, Nagpur

                                    versus

Respondent               :          The State of Maharashtra, through 

Police Station, Chamorshi, District Gadchiroli

Shri B. B. Meshram, Advocate for petitioner

Shri Neeraj Patil, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent-State

Coram : S. B. Shukre, J

Dated : 11th April 2017

Oral Judgment

1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties.

2. This Court in the case of Niwas Keshav Raut v. The State of

Maharashtra reported in 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 3742, following the ratio of

the decision in State of Maharashtra, through PSO, Gadge Nagar,

Amravati v. Ajay Dayaram Gopnarayan & anr reported in 2014 (2) ABR

(Cri) 705, has taken a view that filing of documents subsequent to the

filing of charge-sheet is permissible subject to compliance with the

procedure prescribed in Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It

is seen from the impugned order and the paper book of the writ petition

that the procedure prescribed under Section 294 Cr. P. C. has not been

followed before passing the impugned order. It is also seen that the

objection of the petitioner that many documents have been prepared after

the date of the First Information Report and thus not relevant, has also

not been considered at all by the trial Court. The impugned order is,

therefore, patently illegal and also perverse. It cannot be allowed to

sustain.

3. Writ Petition is allowed. Impugned order is hereby quashed

and set aside. The matter remitted back to the trial Court for deciding the

application at exhibit 104 in accordance with law and by following the

procedure laid down under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. Rule made absolute accordingly.

S. B. SHUKRE, J

joshi