The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking recall of witness Khalid Baig for cross-examination. The court held that the petition must mention the special examination if it happened post the previous order dismissal and that the sanctity of the prior order allowing only two witnesses stands.
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
I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Criminal Writ Petition No. 47 OF 2010
Ramanuj Ramkaran Tripathi
v.
The State (C.B.I)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders
Court's or Judge's orders
Mr. S.J. Khandalkar Advocate for the Petnr. Mr. S.B. Ahirkar Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM: A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 24th FEBRUARY,_2010.
This application is directed against the order made by the trial court rejecting the prayer for recalling witness Khalid Baig for cross-examination.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that Khalid Baig is Investigating Officer and earlier he had filed C.W.P. 647 of 2009 in which this Court allowed him to examine two witnesses. According to learned counsel, while the said criminal writ petition was pending in this Court, Khalid Baig was examined by the trial Court on 27.11.009. He therefore submits that the petitioner should be allowed to crossexamine Khalid Baig.
Per contra, Mr.Ahirkar learned counsel for the
2
respondent, opposed the writ petition and argued that this Court had permitted examination of two witnesses and therefore sanctity of the said order cannot be disturbed at the instance of the petitioner who did not cross-examine the witness Khalid. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
I have gone through the judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No. 647 of 2009 rendered on 19.12.2009. Perusal thereof shows that C.B.I. had given no objection for recalling the two witnesses, namely Baburaj Pawar and Sanjay Agrawal, specifically named by the petitioner. It is on this statement and with the consent of learned counsel for C.B.I the petition was disposed of only in relation to the two witnesses. If the witness Khalid was examined on 27.11.2009 nothing prevented the petitioner from mentioning such fact to this Court since the said writ petition was disposed of on 19.12.2009. It is seen from the deposition of Khalid Baig that Advocate Meshram for the accused was repeatedly asked to cross-examine but he declined to cross-examine. Mr.Meshram had filed Vakalatnama for the petitioner/accused and had appeared. He should have cross-examined the witness. The order rejecting the application for adjournment is not under challenge. This Court permitted examination of only two witnesses and sanctity of the said judgment cannot be touched. For all these reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. Writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGE
3
/TA/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to recall witness Khalid Baig for cross-examination despite failure to cross-examine earlier.
Whether the sanctity of the previous order allowing examination of two witnesses is unaffected by the later examination of Khalid Baig.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
C.W.P. No. 647 of 2009Referred¶12
Ramanuj Ramkaran Tripathi
The State (C.B.I)
A.B. Chaudhari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
