Bombay High Court
Narendra S/O. Babanrao Kalsait vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 23 March, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
J-revn168.16.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION No.168 OF 2016
Narendra s/o. Babanrao Kalsait,
Aged about 24 years,
Occupation : Labour,
R/o. Loni Bk, Tq. Risod, Distt. Washim. : APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Risod,
Tah. Risod, District Washim. : NON-APPLICANT
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri S.D. Chande, Advocate for the Applicant.
Shri A.M. Kadukar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Non-applicant.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
rd
DATE : 23
MARCH, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard. Admit.
2. Heard finally by consent.
3. It is stated in the impugned order dated 17.9.2016 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim that the accused persons
have not produced any material before him to support the contention
that on 31st July, 2015, any panchanama was drawn or any statement
J-revn168.16.odt 2/3
was recorded by the Police. However, on going through the say of the
prosecution dated 7.6.2016 (Page 12), I find that the learned counsel for
the revision applicant is right when he submits that there is no denial of
the prosecution case or the assertions made on behalf of the accused
persons. There was some investigation made, some panchanama was
drawn and some statements were recorded. The say of the prosecution
only shows that the accused persons do not have any right in law to
claim copies of these documents. This material fact has not been
considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, when he rejected
the application vide Exh.-20, which was filed under Section 91 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that the learned Additional
Sessions Judge has only presumed, without there being any material or
basis to make such presumption, that as the offence came to be
registered on 1st August, 2015, there could have been no investigation
whatsoever made before registration of the offence. As a matter of fact,
it is the case of the accused that suspicious death had occurred on 31 st
July, 2015, on which date AD report being AD report No.23/2015 was
registered, some inquiry was made during the course of which statements
were also recorded and even post mortem examination was conducted.
In this backdrop, presumption drawn as well as the conclusions reached
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge would have to be said as
perverse.
J-revn168.16.odt 3/3
4. In the circumstances, I am of the view that this revision
application deserves to be allowed.
5. The revision application stands allowed.
6. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.
7. The matter is remanded back to the learned Additional
Sessions Judge for deciding the application vide Exh.-20 afresh in
accordance with law.
JUDGE
okMksns
