Disposed

Bayama Construction v. M/S. Krystal Stone Exports Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Aug 2007WP/631/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal writ petition regarding a de novo trial, the court held that both parties are at liberty to bring on record certified copies of earlier depositions. The decision to read these documents in evidence lies with the trial court based on law.

What did the court decide?

Parties permitted to file certified copies of earlier depositions; the trial court to decide on reading them in evidence.

Bayama Construction Vs M/S. Krystal Stone… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

:1:

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 631 OF 2007

¶5

 Bayama Construction ..Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

 M/s. Krystal Stone Exports Ltd.
 and anr. ..Respondents

¶8

 Mr. P.S. Dani for petitioner.
 Mr. S.A. Tawale for respondent nos.1 and 2.
 Mr. D.R. More, APP for State.

¶9

CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.

¶10

 Date : August 10, 2007.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

 1. Heard Mr. Dani the learned counsel for the

¶13

 petitioner. Mr. Tawale the learned counsel appears
 for respondent nos.1 and 2. The learned APP appears
 for the State.

¶14

 2. Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2001 was allowed

¶15

 and the impugned order was set aside as per the
 Judgment and Order dated 14/3/2006 and consequently
 the trial of Summary Criminal Case No. 789 of 1998
 started de novo. On remand the case was registered as

¶16

:2:

¶17

 Summary Criminal Case No. 128 of 2006 and the
 complainant filed an application seeking leave to
 bring on record the depositions of the accused as well
 as the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
 in Summary Criminal Case No. 798 of 1998 and this
 application came to be rejected by the impugned order
 dated 20/2/2007.

¶18

 3. Mr. Dani has referred to the decision of this
 court in the case of Shivaji Sampat Jagtap vs. Rajan
 Hiralal Arora and anr. [2006 ALL MR (Cri) 2612] and
 submitted that there was no bar on allowing such
 documents to be brought on record in the de novo
 trial. As per the learned Judge of the trial court
 the depositions recorded in the earlier round cannot
 be read in evidence.

¶19

 4. The learned counsel for the respondents
 submitted that if the petitioner’s application is
 allowed, the accused also should be at liberty to
 bring on record the depositions of the complainant
 recorded in the earlier round for whatever work they
 are. The accused cannot be prevented from doing this.

¶20

:3:

¶21

 5. Hence, it is held that both the parties are at

¶22

 liberty to bring on record the certified copies of the
 earlier depositions and whether the same should be
 read in evidence will have to be decided by the trial
 court as per law.

¶23

 6. The petition is disposed off in terms of the

¶24

 above directions.

¶25

(B.H. Marlapalle,J.)

Bayama Construction v. M/S. Krystal Stone Exports Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bayama Construction v. M/S. Krystal Stone Exports Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lt.Col.S.K. Mishra Vs M/S.Jain Constructions and Anr.

Nityanand Manikam Devendra Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammed Iqbal Bakkar Vs Tahir Turki and Anr.

Narendra Ketshi HUF and Ors. Vs Rekha Bipin Gogari and Anr.

Vijay Rochlani Vs Shaila Kartha and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shrawan Govinda Rangari and Anr.