Bombay High Court
Arjun Arun Sonawane And Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 August, 2025
Author: S. M. Modak
Bench: S. M. Modak
2025:BHC-AS:35858
8-APL-898-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.898 OF 2025
SATISH
RAMCHANDRA 1. Arjun Arun Sonawane
SANGAR
Age : 35 Years, Occupation : Service,
Digitally signed by
SATISH RAMCHANDRA
SANGAR
Residing at : Room No.1, Chawl No.9,
Date: 2025.08.20
19:38:25 +0530
Ekveera Nagar, Vasundri Road, Near
Datta Mandir, Manda, Titwala (West),
Thane - 421 605.
2. Amit Suresh Solanki
Age : 35 Years, Occupation : Service,
Residing at : C/17, Municipal Building,
Near Lions Garden, Kurla, Mumbai :
400070. ...Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Dharavi Police
Station vide C.R. No.317 of 2007). ...Respondent
*****
Mr.N.N.Gawankar (Through V.C.) Advocates for Applicants.
a/w Mr.Shreyas N. Gawankar:-
Ms.Gauri S. Rao:- APP for Respondent - State.
*****
CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.
DATE : 19th AUGUST 2025
P. C. :-
1. Heard learned Advocate Shri.Gawankar for the Applicants and
learned APP.
Satish Sangar 1/5
::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2025 21:39:54 :::
8-APL-898-2025.doc
2. The trial Court Judge has heard the final arguments and closed
the case for judgment. He could not pronounce the judgment. He was
transferred. New Judge who presided over that case abruptly on 24 th
July 2025 issued summons to the witness Nos.4 to 12. This act on the
part of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 12 th Court, Bandra is under
challenge at the instance of the Applicants / Accused.
3. When I heard both of them and seen the papers annexed to the
Application, I find merit in it. Hence, I am inclined to allow the
Application. Hereinafter, I will give reasons.
4. The then Magistrate has framed a charge against the two
Applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") on 14th
January 2013. The allegation in brief is " preparing bogus identity card
of Election Commission". The Applicants have annexed the following
documents:-
(i) Copies of evidence of four prosecution witnesses.
(ii) Copy of statement under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") recorded on 26th April
2024.
No doubt, the copies of Roznama recording " case is fixed for
pronouncing judgment" is not annexed. But in paragraph No.6 of the
Satish Sangar 2/5
::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2025 21:39:54 :::
8-APL-898-2025.doc
Application, the Applicants have pleaded those facts and stage is
pronouncing judgment on 6th May 2025. The judgment is not
pronounced and the impugned order is passed on 24 th July 2025. So
the issue is "whether there can be a direction by the Magistrate to issue
summons when the case is fixed for pronouncing the judgment."
5. If we read the impugned order on Roznama, it is clear the
prosecution has not made any request for issuing summons. I say so
because it is not reflected in that order. It is relevant to consider the
reasoning given by the learned Magistrate. He opined:-
"Allegations are forgery of election of I.D. card and cheating to
election commission. Hence witness needs to be examined."
This Court is not going to decide the necessity of examining the
witness Nos.4 to 12. This Court is not going to make any comment on
the allegations, witnesses who are already examined, new witnesses -
why they were not examined earlier but the issue is about manner of
exercising power to issue directions.
6. In a criminal trial, the burden is on the prosecution. They have
got a right to examine the witnesses within a reasonable time. At the
same time, the Cr.P.C. recognizes the power of Court to summon any
person as a witness. This is a first part of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. This is
Satish Sangar 3/5
::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2025 21:39:54 :::
8-APL-898-2025.doc
optional. But such examination is mandatory when their evidence is
essential for just decision of the case.
7. The impugned order on Roznama nowhere reflects the
satisfaction arrived at by the learned Magistrate to summon these
witnesses. A fair trial also implies giving of an opportunity to all the
concerned parties of being heard. This principle is also breached.
Except Roznama, there is no separate order passed by the learned
Magistrate which is brought to my notice and if the learned Magistrate
has passed an unreasoned order merely on Roznama, it cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law. This is nothing but arbitrary exercise of
power. Under that Section, certainly there is no dispute about suo
motu exercise of power. Under these circumstances, the order needs to
be set aside. The learned Magistrate may re-look to this issue. Hence
the order:-
ORDER
(i) The order dated 24th July 2025 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, 12th Court, Bandra - Mumbai in
Criminal Case No.466/ PW/2008 is set aside.
(ii) The learned Magistrate is at liberty to re-look to the issue of
examining new witnesses particularly when case is fixed for
judgment.
8-APL-898-2025.doc
(iii) If the learned Magistrate feels it necessary, he is directed to:-
(a) hear the prosecution,
(b) the accused
(c) and also consider the record from the perspective as to
whether the summonses issued to those witnesses,
whether they are served and also consider whether the
prosecution has closed the evidence.
(iv) The learned Magistrate to take the decision as per law.
8. With these observations, the Application is disposed of.
[S. M. MODAK, J.]
