Allowed

Santosh Brijmohan Rathi v. Subhashchandra Bose Bigar Sheti Sah. Pat Sanstha Maryadit Thr. Its Admn. Shivdas Bhanudas Mankar

Bombay HC25 Sept 2012APL/300/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed an anticipatory application by an accused in a cheque bounce case. The Court directed the trial court to accept a limited number of defence witnesses via affidavit examination within one week, conditioned on the applicant closing his defence promptly.

What did the court decide?

Affirmed opportunity to produce up to three defence witnesses including affidavit examination within a week if applicant closes defence.

Santosh Brijmohan Rathi Vs Subhashchandra Bose Bigar Sheti… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 apl300.11.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 300 OF 2011

¶5

(SANTOSH BIRJMOHAN RATHI..VS.. SHRI SUBHASHCHANDRA BOSE BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT, PIMPALGAON KALE DIST. BULDANA.)

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

¶10

CORAM : M.L.TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 25, 2012.

¶11

Heard Mr.Anand Deshpande, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.L.A. Mohta, learned counsel for the nonapplicant.

¶12

Non-applicant is complainant in Summary Criminal Case No.290 of 2009 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalgaon (Jamod). The applicant is accused in the said case for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The non-applicant has closed his case and statement of the applicant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is also recorded. The applicant feels aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 20^th May, 2011 rejecting his prayer for calling the defence witnesses.

¶13

I have gone through the impugned order. The reasons given by the learned Magistrate are genuine as the learned Magistrate felt that the applicant was trying to prolong the trial. However, during the course of hearing of the present application, learned counsel Mr. Deshpande has submitted that the applicant undertakes to close his defence

¶14

2 apl300.11.odt

¶15

within a period of one week from today. It is submitted that the documents, if any, will be produced by the applicant and the witnesses also will be produced before the trial Court by the applicant suo motu . The applicant also will not pray for summons to the witnesses.

¶16

In my opinion, the submissions made by Mr.Deshpande are reasonable and interest of justice requires that a fair opportunity should be given to the applicant. In view thereof, it is directed that :

¶17

i) The applicant shall produce documents and/or defence witnesses, if any, before the trial Court on 1^st October, 2012 at 11.00 a.m.;

¶18

ii) The witnesses shall not be more than three, which include the Advocate who had issued reply to the statutory notice, the Police Officer who had recorded the first information report and one Mr. Paraskar;

¶19

iii) The examination-in-chief of all the three witnesses shall be produced by way of affidavit on 1^st October, 2012, without fail ; and

¶20

iv) Cross-examination of all the witnesses shall be completed by the non-applicant on the same day and the case shall be closed for arguments.

¶21

It is made clear that if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions stated herein above the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to dispose of the case expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶22

3 apl300.11.odt

¶23

The application stands disposed of accordingly. Interim relief stands vacated.

¶24

Steno copy of the order be furnished to the parties as per rules. The learned trial Court shall act upon the steno copy.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

RRaut..

Santosh Brijmohan Rathi v. Subhashchandra Bose Bigar Sheti Sah. Pat Sanstha Maryadit Thr. Its Admn. Shivdas Bhanudas Mankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Brijmohan Rathi v. Subhashchandra Bose Bigar Sheti Sah. Pat Sanstha Maryadit Thr. Its Admn. Shivdas Bhanudas Mankar

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

Mohammad Rafique S/O Mohar Ali Mansoori Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Kalmana Nagpur

Prakash S/O Ramlal Khapre and Another Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Kalmeshwar Distt Nagpur

Lalit S/O Ramprakash Sood Vs State of Maharashtra through Police Inspector Kotwali Police Station

R.D. Bokde and 2 Ors. Vs State of Mah. Thru. Pso Ashti and Anor.

Dhanwardhini Investment and Finance Private Limited and Another Vs Smt Aruna W/O Ramchandra Sontake

Pravin S/O Dilip Goudiya Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Kalamna Police Station Nagpur