High Court dismissed Criminal Revision Application regarding refusal of leave for re-examination of prosecution witness, finding the application vague and no fault in lower court's order.
Revision application against respondent No.3 stood dismissed; application disposed of.
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}
Cri. Revision No.177/2011
drp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2011
The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT
VERSUS
Nandkumar Gangadhar Rakshe & Others RESPONDENTS
Mr.S.D.Kaldate, APP for applicant State
[CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.]
DATE: 26th August 2011
PER COURT:
against the order dated 12.11.2009 passed below Exhibit-48 in
Regular Criminal Case No.35/1997 by JMFC, Shrigonda.
was filed against in all three accused. When the impugned order
came to be passed at that time the trial was in progress against
two accused persons. When the present Revision application came
{2} Cri. Revision No.177/2011
up for hearing before this Court on 05.08.2011, judgment in the RCC No.35/1997 was already passed on 04.06.2011. In view of the said judgment, this Court, on 05.08.2011, dismissed the revision application against respondents No.1 and 2 and ordered that the revision to proceed only against respondent No.3, against whom the trial has been separated.
impugned order. It appears that the application (Exhibit-48) was for re-examination of the prosecution witness. Perusal of the application clearly indicates that the contents of the same itself are vague. No doubt, re-examination of the witnesses is permitted in law, if it brought on record that certain new material has been brought on record in the cross examination of the witness of which explanation is necessary or during cross examination certain ambiguity is created by the other side. After reading the application (Exhibit-48), I do not find that the application disclose that certain new material is brought in the cross examination of the witness or some ambiguity has been created in his cross examination. In view of all these facts, I do not notice any fault or
{3}
Cri. Revision No.177/2011
perversity in the impugned order. Consequently, the revision application, which is sans merits, stands dismissed even against respondent No.3. Accordingly, revision application stands disposed
of.
[A.V.POTDAR, J.]
drp/B11/crirevn177-11
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order refusing leave for re-examination of prosecution witness was perversely made.
Whether the revision application discloses any ambiguity or new material justifying re-examination.
Whether the lower court's order allowing revision against only respondent No.3 requires setting aside.
The State of Maharashtra
Nandkumar Gangadhar Rakshe & Others
A.V.POTDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
