Bombay High Court
Ganesh S/O. Bhagwan Khadse vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. ... on 15 November, 2017
Bench: R.P. Mohite-Dere
WP 1063/17 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1063/2017
Ganesh s/o Bhagwan Khadse,
Aged - major, Occu: Service,
R/o. Bhishi, Tq. Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O. Bhishi,
Tq. Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur. RESPONDENT
Mr. Mahesh Rai, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Shyam Bissa, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
DATE : 15 TH NOVEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition is
heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned
counsel for the parties and taken up for final disposal.
2. By this petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated
05.10.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Warora,
below Exhibit 76 in Special Case No.15/2016, by which the petitioner's
application for exhibiting the document was rejected.
WP 1063/17 2 Judgment
3. Mr.Mahesh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the learned Judge had erred in law by rejecting the application of the
petitioner, being Exhibit 76. He submitted that the learned Judge ought
to have exhibited the document (xerox copy referred to by the defence
counsel during the cross-examination of PW1) in view of the answers
given by PW1 vis-a-vis the said document.
4. Mr.Shyam Bissa, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
opposed the petition. He submitted that when PW1 was confronted with
the xerox copy of a document in her cross-examination, the said
document was not exhibited and that the learned Judge rightly observed
that the said objection would be decided at the time of final arguments.
He submitted that as such, there was no necessity for the petitioner to file
an application (Exhibit 76) for exhibiting the said document prior to final
arguments.
5. Perused the papers and the impugned order dated
05.10.2017. It appears that in the cross-examination of PW1, certain
answers were elicited in the cross-examination vis-a-vis one document
(xerox copy of the document). Pursuant to certain admissions elicited in
the cross-examination, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested
the Court to exhibit the said document (xerox copy), as the witness
(PW1) had admitted her signature and that the contents therein were in
WP 1063/17 3 Judgment
her own handwriting. In view of the objection raised by the A.P.P., the
learned Judge observed that the said objection may be decided at the
time of final arguments. It is informed that the evidence is closed and the
matter is posted for final arguments. It appears that before the final
arguments commenced, the petitioner preferred an application for
exhibiting the document (xerox copy), referred to by the defence counsel,
during the cross-examination of PW1, in view of certain admissions that
were elicited in the cross-examination. The said application (Exhibit 76)
was resisted by the learned A.P.P. The learned Magistrate, after hearing
both the parties, rejected the said application (Exhibit 76) preferred by
the petitioner. It may be noted, that the learned Judge had on
10.03.2017 observed, that the said objection would be decided at the
time of final arguments, yet proceeded to decide the said application
(Exhibit 76) prior thereto.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned
order dated 05.10.2017 is quashed and set aside. The learned Sessions
Judge shall decide the objection of the A.P.P. vis-a-vis the exhibiting of
the document, on its own merits again, at the time of final arguments,
after hearing both the parties uninfluenced by the earlier order dated
05.10.2017. All contentions of both the parties are kept open. Rule is
made absolute on the aforesaid terms.
WP 1063/17 4 Judgment
7. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
JUDGE
APTE
