Vinod Manikrao Thorat vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5477 Bom

Judgment

                                                                      apl158.16 10

                                        1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

         CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.158 OF 2016

Vinod Manikrao Thorat,
Aged about 60 years, Occupation Retired,
R/o Near Thatod Mangal Karyalay,
Near Shastri Nagar, Akola,
Taluka and District Akola.                             ..... Applicant.

                                 ::   VERSUS   ::

State of Maharashtra,
Through Anti Corruption
Bureau, Amravati, Taluka and
District Amravati.                                   ..... Non-applicant.

================================================================
           Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Counsel for the applicant.
           Shri N.R. Rode, Addl.P.P. for the non-applicant/State. 
================================================================


                                CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

                                DATE    : AUGUST 3, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

.....2/-

Judgment

apl158.16 10

2. A classic example how a public servant abuses process of

law is the present case.

3. The applicant, who is a Block Development Officer, was

caught red-handed by accepting bribe amount of Rs.4,000/- from the

complainant. The charge was framed against him. The trial

commenced in the year 2009. The prosecution examined its witnesses.

They were thoroughly cross-examined by the applicant. Thereafter,

statement of the applicant under Section 313 was recorded by learned

Special Judge at Amravati. That time, the applicant expressed that he

wishes to examine defence witnesses. Accordingly, the applicant

examined 3 defence witnesses and, thereafter, the matter was fixed for

arguments. In fact, order impugned shows that on 15.2.2016 learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the present applicant before the Court

below advanced his arguments. Thereafter, at his oral request, the

matter was adjourned and the case was posted on 18.2.2016 for further

arguments. The order shows that on the said date learned Special

.....3/-

Judgment

apl158.16 10

Judge was busy in other sessions Trial. Therefore, he could not hear

further arguments and, thereafter, the matter was fixed on 22.2.2016.

4. On 22.2.2016, the applicant moved an application for

recall of prosecution witness Nos.1 and 4 for cross-examination and to

adduce further additional defence witnesses. Learned Special Judge

of the Court below has rejected the said application on 22.2.2016. This

order is under challenge.

5. I have heard learned counsel Shri S.V. Sirpurkar for the

applicant, in extenso.

6. Learned counsel Shri Sirpurkar for the applicant relies

on the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Rajaram

Prasad Yadav ..vs.. State of Bihar and another, reported at (2013) 14

SCC 461 and submits that the Courts should be very liberal in granting

application for recalling of the witnesses.

7. The powers to recall the witness has to be exercised by

.....4/-

Judgment

apl158.16 10

learned Judge of the Court below judiciously. Merely for asking an

application cannot be allowed. The applicant is required to point out a

case for recalling of the witnesses.

8. In the present case, the witnesses, who are sought to be

recalled, were thoroughly cross-examined by the applicant. Not only

that, thereafter, he examined 3 defence witnesses and, thereafter, final

arguments were also commenced in the Court of learned Special

Judge. At the request of the applicant, the matter was adjourned.

Otherwise, on the said date itself, learned Special Judge could

have completed the hearing of the Sessions Trial.

9. Learned counsel Shri S.V. Sirpurkar for the applicant

submits that the reason for moving the application is that the

applicant could lay his hand on a particular letter issued by the

Panchayat Samiti. That is the reason for recalling of witnesses, is the

submission of the applicant. To a very specific query, which was made

to learned counsel Shri Sirpurkar by the Court, as to what date and

.....5/-

Judgment

apl158.16 10

when the applicant found the said letter, learned counsel Shri

Sirpurkar submitted that he is not in a position to make any statement

in that behalf nor those are averments in the application moved by the

present applicant before the Court below.

10. The corruption is a cancer to society. It has to be nipped

in the bud. The public servant is expected to discharge his duty

honestly. The applicant was found accepting bribe on the day of trap.

This Court is not making any observation since it will be prejudging

issue. Suffice to say, the applicant is trying to avoid the course of law

by adopting various tactics. One of tactics to prolong and protract

litigation is to file such frivolous application.

Hence, the criminal application is rejected with costs of

Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand).

JUDGE

!! BRW !!

...../-