In CWP concerning allegations of recording errors in court proceedings and manipulation of records despite prior conviction, the Single Judge rejected the petition as the petitioner could seek redress through an appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2322 OF 2004
Pandurang Madeo Rahate .... Petitioner
Vs.
Hindustan Construction Co.
Ltd., and others .... Respondents
Petitioner in-person.
Shri S.S. Parab for the Respondent No.1.
Shri D.S. Mhaispurkar, Addl. Public Prosecutor,
for the Respondent No.4.
CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR &
P.V. KAKADE, JJ.
DATED: FEBRUARY 14, 2005
P.C:
1. Heard. The grievance of the petitioner is that the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate while recording in the
roznama dated 1-1-2002 wrongly recorded the presence of
the complainant when, according to the petitioner, in
fact the complainant was absent. It is, therefore, the
case of the petitioner that on account of the alleged
manipulation in the roznama, proceedings under Sections
161 and 165-A of the Indian Penal Code are liable to be
initiated against the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. The petitioner, appearing in-person, submitted that
very fact that the application which was filed by the
[2]
petitioner before the learned Magistrate on 1-1-2002 was
not duly acknowledged by the respondent itself discloses
that the respondent/complainant was not present in the
Court on 1-1-2002. Apart from the fact that it is not
possible for this Court to decide the disputed question
of fact regarding the presence or absence of the
complainant in the trial Court while considering this
writ petition, no finding can be arrived at merely on
the basis of the argument sought to be canvassed by the
petitioner that since the application filed by the
petitioner on 1-1-2002 does not disclose on the face of
it the acknowledgement of the copy of the said
application by the complainant on the same day. Merely
on the basis of such argument the factum of presence or
absence of the complainant in the Court cannot be
decided. It is also to be noted that the entry in the
roznama dated 1-1-2002 also states that the copy of the
said application was given to the other side. Besides,
apart from vague statement in that regard, the
petitioner has not approached the concerned Magistrate
to correct the roznama entry, if at all, there was any
mistake in recording of the roznama dated 1-1-2002.
3. Besides, as rightly submitted by the learned
Advocate for the respondent No.1, the petitioner has
already been convicted and whatever grievance he has in
relation to the proceedings before the learned
[3]
Magistrate, certainly he could agitate the same in the
appeal, if filed against the order of conviction. Being
so, there is no case for entertaining the present
petition. The petition is, therefore, rejected.
(R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J.)
(P.V.Kakade, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition should be entertained where the petitioner was already convicted and possesses alternative remedy via appeal.
Whether the High Court can decide disputed questions of fact regarding the presence of a complainant in a writ petition.
Pandurang Madeo Rahate
Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.
R.M.S. Khandeparkar
P.V. Kakade
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court