Rikabchand S/O Rupchand Sawala vs Puranlal S/O Kashiprasad Rai And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6764 Bom

                                                    1                   appln1893.10.odt

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

                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1893/2010

      Rikabchand s/o Rupchand Sawala,
      aged 62 years, Occ. Business, 
      r/o Ner, Tq. Ner, Dist. Yavatmal.                      .....APPLICANT
                         ...V E R S U S...

 1. Puranlal s/o Kashiprasad Rai, 
    aged about 54 years, occ. Business, 
    r/o Sambhaji Nagar, Bharati Apartment,
    Darwha Road, Yavatmal, Tq. Dist. Yavatmal.

 2. State of Maharashtra thr. PSO
    Yavatmal, Tq. Dist. Yavatmal.                            ...NON APPLICANTS

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mr. A. V. Bhide, Advocate for applicant. 
 Mr. R. S. Nayak, A.P.P. for non applicant no.2.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED :- 04.09.2017

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. A.V. Bhide, learned counsel for the applicant

and Mr. R. S. Nayak, A.P.P. for non applicant no.2-State. Counsel

for the non applicant chose not to remain present when the matter

is called out.

2. A complaint was filed by the non applicant no.1 for the

offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments

2 appln1893.10.odt

Act. The said complaint was registered as Summary Criminal Case

No.4474/2006. Evidence in the complaint case has commenced.

The evidence of the complainant was over. Thereafter, the present

applicant examined one Mr.Ashok Jachak as defence witness.

However, he has turned hostile on 14.07.2010. On 20.07.2010,

an application was moved on behalf of the present applicant/

accused for recalling of said witness Ashok. The said application is

at Exh.-140. The application was contested by the complainant.

Prior to the recording of the evidence of Ashok, an application

below Exh.-132 was moved by the accused by which the

transcription of the conversation in between Rahul, son of the

accused and the resiled witness Ashok was allowed to be brought

on record. Thus, on 14.07.2010 when Ashok had turned hostile,

the said transcription was already available on record. The reason

for recalling of Ashok is cited by the accused is for confronting him

with the conversation in between Rahul and him. The application,

in my view, appears was filed only to protract the trial. Since, the

conversation for which Ashok was required to be recalled was

already available and he could have confronted with the said

conversation, when he was in witness box.

3 appln1893.10.odt

3. In that view of the matter, the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, in my view, has rightly rejected the said

application and the said aspect was correctly evaluated by the

learned revisional Court and found that the revision was meritless

and therefore on 04.10.2010, the revision was rightly dismissed.

4. After noticing the aforesaid, in my view, no case is

made out by the applicant. The complaint is stayed for last seven

years. The application is dismissed. The orders passed by the

learned Magistrate and the learned revisional Court are upheld.

The interim order granted by this Court stands vacated.

Since the complaint is of year 2006, it is expected from

the learned Magistrate that he will give preference for early

disposal of this complaint and the parties shall extend their full

cooperation.

Rule is discharged.

JUDGE

kahale