Hanuman S/O Janraoji Parchake And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1049 Bom

                                       1                             CRIWP506.22 (J).odt


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


            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 506 OF 2022


PETITIONERS                : 1] Hanuman S/o Janraoji Parchake,
                                Age 34 years, Occupation : Driver,
                                R/o Village Shendri, Taluka Deoli,
                                Distt. Amravati.
                              2] Rahul S/o Rajendra Kalsarpe,
                                 Age 22 years, Occupation: Labour,
                                 R/o. Village Nachangaon, Tah. Deoli,
                                 Dist. Wardha.

                              3] Ambadas S/o Wamanrao Bagade,
                                 Age 67 years, Occu. - Agriculturist,
                                 R/o Village Babulgaon (Bobade),
                                 Tah. Deoli, Dist. Wardha.
                              4] Sunil S/o Bodhdas Parihar,
                                 Age 46 years, Occu. Service (Nagar Parishad),
                                 R/o Pulgaon, Dist. Yavatmal.

                              5] Ulhas Ramsingh Rathod,
                                 Age 59 years, Occu. Retired (Nayab Tahsildar),
                                 R/o Rathod Layout, Arni Road,
                                 Tal & Dist. Yavatmal.

                                           VERSUS

RESPONDENT                  : State of Maharashtra,
                              through the Police Station Officer,
                              Police Station, Pulgaon, Tal. Deoli,
                              Dist. Wardha.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Mr. Parvez W. Mirza, Advocate for the petitioners.
          Mr. Amit R. Chutke, A. P. P. for the respondent /State
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              2                     CRIWP506.22 (J).odt



                  CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.

DATE : FEBRUARY 01, 2023.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of the learned advocates for the parties.

2. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the

separate notices issued to each one of them, dated 23.05.2022 in terms

of the judgment and order dated 23.05.2022 passed by the learned 3 rd

Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha. The impugned notices were

issued by the Superintendent (Judicial Section), District and Sessions

Court, Wardha to show cause as to why action should not be taken

against them for giving false evidence in Special (Atro.) Case No.

89/2020 (State .vs. Sachin Babade and others).

3. The petitioners were examined as witnesses in the above

referred special case. The petitioners did not support the case of the

prosecution. They were declared hostile with the permission of the 3 CRIWP506.22 (J).odt

Court. Learned Judge in his detail judgment, has opined that these

witnesses (petitioners herein) have given false evidence. In terms of

the directions set out in the judgment dated 23.5.2022, the

Superintendent issued separate notices to the petitioners. These

notices are impugned in this petition.

4. I have heard Mr. Parvez Mirza, learned advocate for the

petitioners and Mr. Amit R. Chutke, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Also perused the record and

proceedings.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioners, relying upon the

decision in the case of Dr. S. P. Kohli .vs. The High Court of Punjab

and Haryana, reported at 1978 Cri.L.J. 1804, submitted that on the

basis of vague statement made in the notices, the petitioners are denied

fair opportunity to meet the actual allegations against them. Learned

advocate submitted that relevant material ought to have been referred

to in the notices. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that the

impugned notices may be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate

further submitted that in order to enable the petitioners to meet the 4 CRIWP506.22 (J).odt

allegations against them, specific notices can be issued by relying upon

the relevant material by setting aside the impugned notices.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

submitted that the relevant observations have been made in the

judgment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while deciding the

special case. Learned APP, in short, supported the impugned notices.

In the alternative, learned APP submitted that if this Court is inclined

to accept the submission advanced by the learned advocate for the

petitioners, then in that event, the concerned may be directed to issue

specific notices, by making reference to the relevant material, in

accordance with law.

7. I have perused the notices issued to the petitioners. The

facts stated in the notices does not contain concrete statement. It is

also not stated in the notices that the notices are issued on the basis of

the observation/finding recorded by the Court in the judgment. It is

stated in the notices that there is prima facie material to indicate that

they have deliberately given false evidence or became hostile without

brief elaboration of that material.

5 CRIWP506.22 (J).odt

8. The question is whether the contents of the notices are

sufficient to offer a fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to

answer the notices and meet the case sought to be asserted against

them. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. S.P. Kohli (supra),

has held that the notice issued in such a matter must satisfy the

essential requirement of law. Such notice must specify the offending

statement from the evidence. It is held that the necessary portion of

the witnesses' statement is required to be set out in the notice. In the

case on hand, it appears that prima facie finding was recorded by the

learned Judge with regard to the false evidence given by the petitioners.

The notices are issued as a sequel to the said observation. Perusal of

the notices would show that specific mention of this fact has not been

made therein.

9. In my view, therefore, the petitioners have a right to know

what is going to hit them. If they know it, then only they would be

able to meet it properly. Therefore, in my view, the impugned notices

are required to be quashed and set aside. However, considering the fact

that the learned Judge has made specific observation in the judgment 6 CRIWP506.22 (J).odt

dated 23.05.2022 on the point of false evidence given by these

witnesses (petitioners), it would be appropriate to direct the concerned

to issue fresh notices to the petitioners by stating the relevant

material/facts for initiation of proceeding for giving false evidence and

specific section under which they would be prosecuted.

10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

(i) Impugned notices dated 23.05.2022 issued to the

petitioners by the Superintendent (Judicial Section), District and

Sessions Court, Wardha are quashed and set aside. He is directed to

issue fresh notice to the petitioners in accordance with law and by

keeping in mind the law laid down in the case of Dr. S.P. Kohli (supra).

(ii) Registry to communicate this order to the learned 3 rd

Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, forthwith.

11. Rule is made absolute accordingly. The petition stands

disposed of.

( G. A. SANAP, J. ) Diwale

Digitally signed byPARAG PRABHAKARRAO DIWALE Signing Date:02.02.2023 17:57