Ramprasad Rangrao Kale vs Nsl Sugars Ltd Unit Iii Jay Mahesh ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 6528 Bom

Bombay High Court

Ramprasad Rangrao Kale vs Nsl Sugars Ltd Unit Iii Jay Mahesh ... on 1 March, 2024

2024:BHC-AUG:4757


                                                                               wp1873.23
                                                   -1-

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        1002 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1873 OF 2023
                                    Ramprasad Rangrao Kale
                                              VERSUS
                     NSL Sugars Ltd Unit Iii Jay Mahesh Pawarwadi Through Its
                                 Manager Ashok Ramrao Pawar
                                                     ...
                Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Solanke Krushna S.
                Advocate for Respondents : Mr. R.K. Kasat h/f Mr. Aditya N.
                Sikchi
                                                  .....

                                              CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.

DATED : 1st MARCH, 2024.

PER COURT :-

1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated

24.11.2023 passed by the Additional C.J.M. Majalgaon, District Beed,

below Exh.94 in S.C.C. No. 364 of 2014 which was filed under Section

138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. It is fact that evidence of two witnesses were recorded and

the complainant was willing to examine the third witness. Meanwhile,

evidence of complainant was closed on 15.4.2017. That order was not

set aside. The complainant was trying to prolong the matter. Therefore,

order passed against him for closing of evidence, further permission

was sought for recording of his evidence. The learned trial court

allowed that application and directed the manager of Canara Bank to

adduce his evidence. That application was objected by the petitioner

accused. The prayer of the petitioner was rejected.

wp1873.23

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the orders

passed by both the courts below are illegal and suffer from perversity

and illegality. It is liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that though

the evidence close order was passed, the petitioner did not insist for

disposing of the matter on merits when the trial court was convinced.

The said order was passed on merits.

5. Perused the impugned order. The learned trial court has

observed that if the complainant is not present or is not represented by

the advocate, in such circumstances, case cannot be proceeded

further. Considering the old matter, the trial court has rightly observed

that recording of evidence of the said witness is necessary for coming to

conclusion of trial finally. Merely because there was earlier order not

allowing to record evidence of that witness, the trial court by recording

sufficient reasons may allow to record the evidence of such witness, if it

is necessary, in the interest of justice. The trial court has passed

reasoned order.

6. Considering the aforesaid aspects, there is no illegality or

perversity in the impugned order. No interference is warranted in the

impugned order of the trial court and the appellate court. The writ

petition therefore, deserves to be dismissed. The writ petition is

dismissed.

(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)

rlj/