Bombay High Court
Sunil S/O. Pandhari Awchar vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 29 January, 2018
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 APL787.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 787 OF 2017
APPLICANTS : Sunil S/o Pandhari Awchar,
Age 48 years, Occ. Social Worker and
Chief Editor of Marathi Daily newspaper
"Rajyonnati", R/o Tathagat Nagar,
Balapur Byepass, IN front of Ganga Nagar,
Old City, Akola.
VERSUS
NON-APPLICANT : The State of Maharashtra,
through the Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Civil Lines, Akola.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. D. H. Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. N. R. Rode, A.P.P. for the non-applicant/State
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : JANUARY 29, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the parties.
2. Heard Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel for the applicant
and Mr. N. R. Rode, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
2 APL787.17.odt
non-applicant/State.
3. Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel for the applicant
submits that by rejecting application (Exh.42) the applicant/accused
was denied opportunity to cross-examine the victim. He submits that
therefore, the order dated 26.7.2017 passed below Exh.42 in
Sessions Trial No. 144/2014 be set aside and the permission be
granted to the applicant to cross-examine throughly the victim.
4. The applicant/accused was charge-sheeted for the
offences punishable under Sections 394, 364, 504, 506 of the Indian
Penal Code read with Section 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. The case
was committed to the Court of Sessions, which is registered as
Sessions Trial No. 144/2014.
5. The evidence commenced. The victim was examined by
the prosecution and also he was throughly cross-examined for the
Charge framed under Sections 394, 364, 504 and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code. During the course of trial, it was found by the learned
Judge of the trial Court that charge under Section 324 of the Indian
Penal Code is required to be added. Accordingly, the learned
3 APL787.17.odt
Sessions Judge has added the charge under Section 324 of the Indian
Penal Code. The said order of adding the charge under Section 324
of IPC has already attained finality.
6. After the framing of charge, the complainant was
recalled for further evidence in respect of the added charge. At that
particular point of time, the applicant filed an application for
permission of detail cross-examination of the victim. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge, in my view, has correctly rejected the said
application since insofar as the other charges are concerned, the
applicant has already exercised his right of cross-examination and in
fact has cross-examined the complainant/victim. It is not the case
that the learned Judge of the Court below has not granted
permission to the applicant/accused to cross-examine the
complainant in respect of added charge under Section 324 of the
Indian Penal Code. That permission is granted. In the garb of this
application, the applicant/ accused want that the cross-examination
should be de novo, which is not permissible.
7. No fault can be located in the impugned order passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola. There is no perversity.
4 APL787.17.odt
It is the case that need no interference. Hence, the criminal
application is rejected. Rule discharged.
JUDGE
Diwale
