Bombay High Court
Arvind S/O Vitthalrao Kaware vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 28 July, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 apl295.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.295/2016
Arvind s/o Vitthalrao Kaware,
aged about 64 years, Occ. Retired,
r/o Dhoke Layout, Chhoti Umari,
Akoa, Tq. Dist. Akola. .....APPLICANT
...V E R S U S...
State of Maharashtra, through
Anti Corruption Bureau, Washim,
Tq. Dist. Washm. ...RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for applicant.
Mrs. M. H. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for respondent-State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- JULY 28, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the parties.
2. After completion of the entire investigation, final report
under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was filed before the Court by the
Anti Corruption Bureau.
3. In due course, the trial has commenced. Though, the
names of certain witnesses figured in the final report, the
prosecution and the learned A.P.P. incharge of the brief chose not
2 apl295.16.odt
to examine them as prosecution witnesses. Mr. Sirpurkar, learned
counsel for the applicant submits that thereafter the prosecution
has filed a pursis on record closing its case. The applicant-accused
entered into defence. He submitted before the Court below that
he wishes to examine the witness in his defene. He moved an
application for issuance of summons to the defence witness. The
said application is at Exh.-116 in Special Case No.1/2005. The
learned Special Judge vide order dated 06.04.2016, partly allowed
the said application granting permission to the applicant to
examine the witness Shaikh Khwaja Shaikh Yakub however
rejected the prayer made by the applicant for examining the other
persons who are named as witnesses on the ground that those
persons were cited by the prosecution as its witness.
4. In my view, such an approach on the part of the Court
below is incorrect. Merely because the persons were cited as
witnesses, that does not bar the accused to call them as defence
witnesses especially when those witnesses were not examined
during the course of trial. Hence, the order passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Washim dated 06.04.2016 below Exh.
116 in Special Case No.1/2005 is hereby set aside. Application
3 apl295.16.odt
Exh.-116 filed by the applicant in the said special case is hereby
allowed.
It is made clear that the applicant shall take immediate
steps to serve summons on the witnesses and should not protract
the trial. It is made clear that if it is noticed by the learned Special
Judge that the applicant is trying to linger the trial on account of
non examination or non service of notice, the Court is free to pass
appropriate orders.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as
to costs.
(JUDGE)
kahale
