Dismissed

Shahabuddin Rahiman Mujawar v. Rajaram Bapu Sahakari Bank and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Mar 2012WP/750/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the trial court's order allowing a bank complainant to produce documents and examine a witness under Section 311 CrPC, holding that the discretion was exercised judiciously.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; trial court's order allowing production of documents and examination of witness stands affirmed.

Shahabuddin Rahiman Mujawar Vs Rajaram Bapu… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

-: 1 :-

wp – 750/12

srp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 750 OF 2012

¶6

Shahabuddin Rahiman Mujawar. ..Petitioner. Versus Rajaram Bapu Sahakari Bank Ltd and Another. ..Respondents.

¶7

Mr. Balwant Patole for the petitioner. Mr. D.P. Adsule for State.

¶8

Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : March 14, 2012 .

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

This writ petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shirala of 12^th January 2012. By the said order, Respondent–Complainant’s application at Exhibits- 48 & 50 came to be allowed.

¶11

Application Exhibit-48 was preferred by the complainant for permission to produce documents, which are filed alongwith Exhibit-49. By application at Exhibit-50, the respondent–Complainant sought permission under section 311

¶12

-: 2 :-

¶13

wp – 750/12

¶14

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to examine one more witness.

¶15

The petitioner-accused does not dispute the execution of documents, which are sought to be produced by the respondent-bank. Those documents are executed by the petitioner–accused himself. The defence of the accused seems to be that those documents were never acted upon. In these circumstances, the production of documents may not prejudice interest of the petitioner–accused, as his main defence is fraud and misrepresentation allegedly committed by the respondent – bank subsequent to the execution of those documents. The trial Court in its discretion allowed the production of documents as well as granted permission to examine witness. The discretion, in my opinion, is exercised judiciously. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with such discretion in my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner pressed into service decision of the Supreme Court in 2009 All MR(Cri) 1588 SC [Sethuraman vs. Rajamanickam]. However, facts of the said case are distinguishable; in that case the High Court allowed the

¶17

-: 3 :-

¶18

wp – 750/12

¶19

production of documents without hearing otherside, revision was also not maintainable. In these circumstances, the Apex Court interfered with the order of the High Court under which production was granted. Therefore, ratio of this case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon Single Judge’s decision of this Court in Kamesh vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [2007 All MR (Cri)2435]. In my view, the said ratio cannot be made applicable to the present case in view of the fact that the petitioner has not disputed the execution of documents. Taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶21

In the light of above discussion, writ petition is

¶22

dismissed.

¶23

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

Shahabuddin Rahiman Mujawar v. Rajaram Bapu Sahakari Bank and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahabuddin Rahiman Mujawar v. Rajaram Bapu Sahakari Bank and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashirwad Charitable Trust Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kalpesh Jayantilal Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dilip Khitindra Syam and Anr. Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Jayaram Balaram Patil Vs Devidas Naga Patil and Ors.

Unmesh Ganesh Desai Vs Shardul @ Shamika Unmesh Desai and ANR24

Nelson Alber D'Cruz @ Nanha Vs State of Maharashtr and Ors.