April 15, 2026
State
Vs.
Sandhya Gupta & Anr.
__________________________________________________
12. Mr. Desai has rightly pointed out that after the evidence of the
Prosecution was closed, the matter was kept for recording the
statements of the Accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C and the
statements of the Respondents-Accused came to be recorded under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on 30.03.2026 and the matter was posted for
final arguments on 08.04.2026.
13. The fact that the Prosecution has closed its evidence is disputed by
the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Therefore, Mr. Desai
rightly pointed out that this fact cannot be disputed because the
Roznama dated 21.01.2026 reads as follows:-
"...Further cross-examination of Pw22 IO/DySP Rajendra
Prabhudessai recorded and completed."
14. From the above Roznama, it is clear that the cross-examination of
PW-22 (Investigating Officer), Dy.S.P., Mr. Rajendra Prabhudessai was
recorded and completed on 23.01.2026. In view thereof, I reject this
submission made on behalf of the Additional Public Prosecutor that
the evidence of the Prosecution was not closed.
15. Mr. Desai rightly pointed out that normally, the Investigating Officer
is the last witness and after the completion of the evidence of the
Investigating Officer, the statement of the Accused under Section
313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. I agree with the submissions of Mr. Desai
that, during the course of the last 12 years, 22 witnesses of the
April 15, 2026
State
Vs.
Sandhya Gupta & Anr.
__________________________________________________
Prosecution were examined, including the Investigating Officer and
therefore, the Prosecution is not entitled to lead any further evidence
after the Investigating Officer has already been examined without
making an exceptional case. In the present case, no such case is made
out at all. Therefore, the finding of the Learned Judge that the
Application is filed very casually is appropriate, and I completely
agree with it.
16. The Prosecution has had ample opportunities since 2013. The 1st
Respondent has suffered due to the inordinate delay caused solely on
behalf of the Prosecution. The record clearly indicates that the Trial
Court has always been fair to the Prosecution and therefore, almost
225 dates were given to examine the Prosecution witnesses. The
record further indicates that time was repeatedly sought by the
Prosecution to examine the Prosecution witnesses. The evidence of
the Investigating Officer (PW-22) was closed after 44 dates. The
Investigating Officer was absent on 17 occasions. Thereafter, on
04.03.2021, the Prosecution was directed to file a list of witnesses in
the matter. The Prosecution has already examined the witnesses from
the list and has also examined the witnesses that were not part of the
list. There was further delay in the examination of the witnesses, and
therefore, the Trial Court on 30.09.2024, directed the Prosecution to
file a further list of witnesses, desired to be examined by the
Prosecution. This list was submitted by the Prosecution on
04.10.2024, and the witnesses were examined by the Prosecution.
There was no reason for the Prosecution not to examine the
April 15, 2026
State
Vs.
Sandhya Gupta & Anr.
__________________________________________________
proposed witnesses on the earlier occasions when their names were
given in the list of witnesses by the Prosecution. Further, the
Prosecution chose to lead the evidence of the Investigation Officer,
indicating that he is the last witness because though the names of
eight witnesses were in the list, they were never examined earlier.
17. While deciding the first Application dated 30.01.2026, which was
made by the Petitioner seeking to issue summons to nine more
witnesses, the Trial Court has rightly held that the Application was
filed after the Investigating Officer was examined. Further, in
paragraph 11 of the impugned order dated 13.02.2026, the Learned
Judge, after going through the record, recorded that some of the
witnesses who were sought to be examined by the Prosecution could
not be examined as their whereabouts were not traced. It is further
rightly recorded by the Trial Court that on a number of occasions,
the matter came to be adjourned on behalf of the Prosecution, and
the said witnesses could not be examined. Therefore, I agree with the
submissions made by the 1st Respondent that all the Applications
made by the Petitioner are only afterthoughts and are an attempt to
delay the matter.
18. I find that the reason recorded by the Learned Judge in the impugned
order that there is inordinate delay on the part of the Prosecution is
correct. I also agree with the Learned Judge that there is no
justification and explanation given by the Prosecution for the
inordinate delay. Considering the fact that the trial was going on for
April 15, 2026
State
Vs.
Sandhya Gupta & Anr.
__________________________________________________
more than 19 years, I agree with the submissions made by Mr. Desai
that there is not a mere delay, but the delay is inordinate which cannot
be justified on any grounds. I also agree with the findings given by the
Trial Court in paragraph 14 in support of the order dated 27.02.2026
to reject the Application filed by the Petitioner.
19. I do not find any justifiable reasons stated by the Petitioner in
support of its Applications dated 27.02.2026 under Section 311 of
the Cr.P.C. The expert witness (PW-4) who is sought to be recalled
has deposed in the proceedings and his cross-examination was
completed on 14.09.2017. Even in this case, the delay to recall PW-4
cannot be justified on any grounds. Therefore, it would not be fair to
the Accused to call this witness for re-examination after a period of
more than 9 years. I agree with all the findings and reasons assigned
by the Learned Judge to dismiss the Prosecution's Application to
recall PW-4.
20.The Prosecution cannot conduct the trial in the manner in which it
was conducted in the present case. It took 5 and a half years for the
Prosecution to file the charge sheet, and from 2013 to 2026 to
conduct the trial. Therefore, I agree with the submission of Mr. Desai
that the 1st Respondent had to suffer for no reason for so many years.
The argument of 'fair trial' equally applies to the Accused. The rights
of the Accused cannot be curtailed by merely stating that the
evidence is vital, but it remained to be led earlier.
April 15, 2026
State
Vs.
Sandhya Gupta & Anr.
__________________________________________________
21. As far as the other two Applications dated 27.02.2026 are concerned,
the same are disposed of by a common order dated 19.03.2026. Even
these Applications are filed by the Petitioner after the evidence of the
Investigating Officer was completed and the matter was posted for
recording the statement of the Accused under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. The Applications are not justified on any grounds. If the
evidence is vital, then all the more reason the Prosecution should
have led it earlier and should not have waited to realise it after the
cross-examination of the Investigation Officer is over. The case of
the Prosecution is that the audio recording is very vital, and therefore,
PW-4, the expert witness, was examined, and his cross-examination
was concluded in the year 2017. It took close to 7 years for the
Prosecution to realise that PW-4 should be re-examined. I agree with
the submission of Mr. Desai that this cannot be justified at the cost
of the rights of the Accused.
22.As far as the Application for recalling the Investigating Officer is
concerned, it merely proceeded on the ground that the cassette
recording, which, according to the Prosecution, is the original audio
relating to the Prosecution's case, was not played during the
examination of the Investigating Officer. I find that this cannot be
the justification to recall the Investigating Officer after his cross-
examination is concluded and the statements of the Accused are
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
April 15, 2026
State
Vs.
Sandhya Gupta & Anr.
__________________________________________________
23.Ms. Kamat Wagh on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar & Anr.
(2013) 14 SCC 461 submitted that the Court should bear in mind that
no party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors and that if
proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not
brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court should be
magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified. The
principle of law is absolutely binding on me. However, it is to be
made applicable after examining the facts and circumstances of each
case. In this case, magnanimity cannot come at the cost of the
accused, who has been facing the allegations since 2007 and has had
to wait more than five years to be charge-sheeted. Further, the
Accused has been awaiting the outcome of the trial since 2013. It is
not the case of the Prosecution that the Accused have delayed the
trial or failed to co-operate with it. In this case, there is no material
before me to support any submissions of the Prosecution that any
injustice was caused to it.
24.It is also a settled principle of law that while advancement of justice
remains the prime object of law, it cannot be understood that
recall/re-examination can be allowed for the asking or for any reasons
related to mere convenience. The approach to fairness in trial ought
also to be viewed from the perspectives of the Accused, the victim,
the witnesses, society, and the criminal justice system. No casual or
mechanical approach can be adopted by the Applicant merely by
stating that, if a witness is not examined/recalled/re-examined, the
April 15, 2026
State
Vs.
Sandhya Gupta & Anr.
__________________________________________________
trial would result in a miscarriage of justice. An Application after a
considerable delay ought to be discouraged. Re-examining/Re-calling
a witness cannot be done routinely, and certainly it is not a matter of
right.
25.In the present case, I find that the Applications of the Prosecution
filed after a prolonged trial since 2023 are merely for convenience of
the Prosecution. There are no tangible reasons that support any of
the Applications filed by the Prosecution in the present case.
Therefore, I reject the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner
that no prejudice would be caused to the 1st Respondent if the
Applications filed by the Petitioner are allowed.
26.Therefore, I reject all the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner.
27.In view thereof, I find that the Learned Judge has considered all the
facts and circumstances and has passed a well-reasoned orders. I do
not find any perversity or arbitrariness in the impugned orders. The
impugned orders are based on a judicious exercise of powers and is
within the parameters of well-established principles of law. Therefore,
there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised
by the Learned Judge.
28.Therefore, I do not find any justification to grant any relief to the
Petitioner in the present Petition. Therefore, the Petition is
dismissed.
April 15, 2026
State
Vs.
Sandhya Gupta & Anr.
__________________________________________________
29.However, it is made clear that the findings given by the Learned Trial
Court in the impugned orders shall not be considered while deciding
the matter finally. It is further made clear that if the Trial Court
decides, in its own discretion, to play the audio cassette containing the
alleged conversation, allegedly relevant in the case, then the Trial
Court shall do it in accordance with law.
30.The Petition stands disposed of.
31. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal
Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax
or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
[ AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J. ]
April 15, 2026
