Disposed

Shri Subodh S. Kantak v. Shri Aires Rodrigues

Bombay HC11 Jan 2010WPCR/1/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged lower court orders rejecting objections to his cross-examination. The High Court disposed of the writ petition, reserving the petitioner's right to contest evidentiary value at final arguments in the expedited trial.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's right to challenge evidentiary value reserved for final arguments in the trial; writ petition disposed of.

Shri Subodh S. Kantak Vs Shri Aires Rodrigues — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶2

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1 OF 2010

¶3

SHRI SUBODH S. KANTAK Versus SHRI AIRES RODRIGUES

¶4

... Petitioner

¶5

... Respondent

¶6

Mr. S. G. Bhobe, Advocate with Mr. V. A. Lawande, Advocate for the Petitioner. Respondent Mr. Aires Rodrigues, present in person.

¶7

Coram:R. M. SAVANT, J. Date:11th January, 2010

¶8

P.C.

¶9

This Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the Orders dated 13.11.2009, 20.11.2009 and 04.12.2009, passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Panaji, by which Orders, the objections raised on behalf of the Petitioner to the questions asked and the documents produced by the Respondent herein whilst cross examining the Petitioner, have been rejected.

¶10

The Petitioner is the original Complainant in Criminal Case no. 84/08/B filed under Section 499 read with Section 500 of the IPC. The trial of the said Criminal case has been expedited by Order dated 26/10/2009 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Cri.) No.7306 of 2009.

¶11

The impugned Orders in the present Petition are sought to be challenged on various grounds which have been mentioned in the Petition. It would be relevant to state that the parties are in the midst of trial and presently the Petitioner is under cross examination by the Respondent. As indicated above, various contentions are sought to

¶12

be urged as regards the questions and the documents which have been permitted by the Trial Court in the cross examination.

¶13

In my view, it would not be appropriate to interdict at this stage, however, by reserving the right of the Petitioner to raise the contentions regarding the evidentiary value of the material that has come on record during cross examination, at the time of final arguments in the said case, the above Writ Petition is disposed of. Since the said Criminal case is already expedited by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is expected that the parties would co-operate in the early disposal of the case.

¶14

The above Criminal Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶15

R. M. SAVANT, J.

¶16

arp/*

Shri Subodh S. Kantak v. Shri Aires Rodrigues

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Subodh S. Kantak v. Shri Aires Rodrigues

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Narendra v. Kanekar Vs Syndicate Bank through Chief Manager

Shri Narendra v. Kanekar Vs Syndicate Bank through Chief Manager

Mr. Tiwan D'Souza Vs State through P.P. and Anr.

Mr. Joaquim Mauricio Rebello (Presently in Judicial Lock-Up, Panaji Goa) Vs State through P.I. Attached to Panaji Police Station and Anr.

Mr. Zamir Khan Presently Lodged in Sada Sub Jail Vasco Vs State through Public Prosecutor

Mr. Devidas G. Naik Alias Rupesh Naik Vs Mr. Navi Naik