The High Court rejected the State's writ petition challenging the discharge of accused persons due to prolonged failure to record evidence within the prescribed period.
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.
bsb
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1133 OF 2007
The State of Maharashtra
... Petitioner
v/s
Shri Gondappagauda Parutgauda Koti
& 4 ors.... Respondents
Smt.A.A.Mane, A.P.P. for the petitioner State.
Mr.Umesh R. Mankapure for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
CORAM:SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.
DATED: 27TH JUNE, 2008
P.C.:
1. The State has challenged the order passed by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli, on 18.7.2005 in
R.C.C.No.181 of 1996 discharging the accused and the
order passed by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge,
Sangli, confirming the discharge in the revision
application filed by the State.
2. According to the learned A.P.P., the orders passed
by the Courts below suffer from infirmity which require
to be corrected by this Court in its writ jurisdiction.
It is submitted that the Trial Court has discharged the
accused on the ground that the prosecution has not led
any evidence before charge for atleast 3 to 4 years. It
2
is submitted by the learned A.P.P. that the Court was
not able to take up the matter because of some heavy
work pending in the Court. She submits that the roznama
shows that on many occasions the accused remained absent
and the matter was adjourned. Today, however, she
submits that it is only on one occasion that an
adjournment was asked by the prosecution since the Food
Inspector had retired.
3. In my opinion, this submission of the learned A.P.P.
cannot be accepted. It is inconceivable that for nine
years the prosecution was unable to lead evidence before
the Judge. Assuming the Court was busy with other
matters on some days or that the accused was absent on
some other days, it was for the prosecution witness to
remain present in Court for his evidence to be recorded.
If indeed he had been present, the roznama would reflect
this. In fact, the complainant has been absent from
Court on a number of occasions as seen from the roznama.
4. In such a situation, there is no need to interfere
with the orders passed by both the Courts below.
5. Writ petition rejected.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Courts below err in discharging the accused after a prolonged period without recording evidence.
Whether the delay in recording prosecution evidence justifies interference with the discharge order.
The State of Maharashtra
Shri Gondappagauda Parutgauda Koti
Nishita Mhatre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court