Ashokkumar S/O. Madanlal Rathi vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 831 Bom

                                          1                                      APL901.17.odt


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


          CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 901 OF 2017


 APPLICANT                : Ashokkumar S/o Madanlal Rathi,
                            Aged about 65 years, Occu. - Agriculturist,
                            R/o Ward No.2, Near Nagar Parishad Shopping
                            Complex, Mangrulpir, Dist. Washim.

                                              VERSUS

 NON-APPLICANT               :  State of Maharashtra,
                                Through Range Forest Officer
                                (Territorial), Karanja / Range Forest
                                Officer, Manora Division, Akola.

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Mr. S. A. Mohta, Advocate for the applicant.
            Mr. M. K. Pathan, A.P.P. for the non-applicant /State.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE, J.

                      DATE     : JANUARY 23, 2018.


 ORAL JUDGMENT

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of the parties.

2. Heard Shri S.A. Mohta, the learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri M.K.Pathan, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the non-applicant/State.

2 APL901.17.odt

3. By the present application under section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, the applicant is challenging the order passed

by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Manora, dated

15.11.2017 in Regular Criminal Case No. 30/2009 (State vs.

Ashokkumar and others), by which the learned Magistrate allowed

the application (Exh.99) filed on behalf of the prosecution, thereby

granting permission to the prosecution to file documents on record.

4. Mr. Mohta, the learned counsel for the applicant

submitted that the application (Exh.99) was filed on 15.11.2017 by

the prosecution after examination of ten prosecution witnesses. He

submitted that the impugned order shows that it sans any reason as

to why the learned magistrate is granting the application and

permitting the prosecution to file documents on record.

5. The present proceedings under Section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure can be entertained in view of the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 153

in the case of Sethuraman .vs. Rajamanickam. Perusal of the said

reported judgment of the Ho'ble Apex Court shows that the order

3 APL901.17.odt

impugned is not an interlocutory order and therefore, the revision

does not lie. At this stage, this Court is not expressing its view as to

whether it was out of the province of the prosecution to file the

application seeking permission to file documents on record after

adducing the evidence of ten prosecution witnesses. Further, the

Court is also not giving its verdict in respect of the jurisdiction of the

learned trial Judge either to allow or reject the application.

6. The reasons are the mirror as to what is the thinking

process of the adjudicating authority when a particular issue is taken

up before such an adjudicating authority, whether it is Court or any

other authority invested with the powers of the Court.

7. When application (Exh.99) for permission to file

documents on record was filed, it was expected from the learned

Magistrate to decide the said application on its own merits by

supplementing reasons either in favour of the prosecution or against

the prosecution. Surely, it was not expected from the learned

Magistrate to decide the application by a cryptic one line order that

permission to file the documents is granted. If such type of orders

4 APL901.17.odt

are passed, the litigants are at loss to understand as to why the

application filed by the adversary is considered favourably by the

Court below.

8. (i) Consequently, the order dated 15.11.2017 passed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Manora in

Regular Criminal Case No. 30/2009 (State .vs.

Ashokkumar) below application (Exh.99), is hereby

quashed and set aside.

(ii) The learned Magistrate is directed to consider the

application (Exh.99) filed by the prosecution afresh by

giving opportunity of hearing to both, prosecution as

well as the present applicant and other accused persons,

and shall decide the said application by a reasoned

order.

(iii) The learned Magistrate is directed to decide the

application (Exh.99) within a period of one month from

today. All the parties are directed to extend full

cooperation to the learned Magistrate for deciding the

application (Exh.99).

5 APL901.17.odt

9. With these observations, the criminal application (APL)

is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

JUDGE

Diwale