Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay Murlidhar Padhye and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Jun 2013WP/1308/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the State challenging the dismissal of a revision. The lower courts rejected a request to summon a medical witness under Section 311 CrPC due to the belated application, which was made after prosecution evidence concluded. The Court held the exercise of discretion was not capricious and no patent illegality existed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no orders as to costs.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sanjay Murlidhar… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

23-WP-1308-2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1308 OF 2012

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...PETITIONER V/s. MR.SANJAY MURLIDHAR PADHYE & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS

¶6

Ms.V.S.Mhaispurkar Advocate for the Petitioner / State.

¶7

Mrs.Jayashri Akolkar Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶8

CORAM: ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATE : 11^th JUNE, 2013.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1 By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the State of Maharashtra is challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-4, Kolhapur, dismissing the revision application filed by the State challenging the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (JMFC), C.R.No.2, Kolhapur, in R.C.C.No.266 of 2008, pending before him. By that order, the learned Magistrate rejected the application made by the prosecution for summoning a witness -one Dr.Sudhir Deodhar – under the provisions of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code).

¶11

avk 1/4

¶12

23-WP-1308-2012

¶13

2 I have heard Ms.V.S.Mhaispurkar, the learned APP for the State, and Mrs.Jayashri Akolkar, the learned counsel for the respondents. I have been taken through the order passed by the learned Magistrate, as well as by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the revision.

¶14

3 It is not in dispute that the application for summoning the said witness – one Dr.Sudhir Deodhar – was made after the prosecution evidence had already been adduced and the accused persons were examined under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code.

¶15

4 Though the contention advanced by the learned APP that this would not bar the jurisdiction of the court under Section 311 of the Code, to summon the a witness is legally correct, the fact that the application had been made belatedly, is also relevant.

¶16

5 I have ascertained what was intended to be proved by examining this witness. The claim of the prosecution is that the said witness had treated the child of the first informant, who had been administered heavy dose of medicine by the respondent no.1 herein, i.e. the original accused no.1. The case pending before the Magistrate is in respect of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The contention raised by the prosecution appears to be that the respondent no.1 had wrongly administered some heavy dose of medicine to the child of the first informant – which happens to be the child of the respondent no.1 too – and that, on that occasion, the child was treated by the said Dr.Sudhir Deodhar.

¶17

avk 2/4

¶18

23-WP-1308-2012

¶19

6 The learned Magistrate was of the view that the evidence of this witness was not necessary for the purpose of a just decision of the case. Same was the view of the learned Additional Sessions Judge also.

¶20

7 It is not possible to hold that the order passed by the Magistrate or that passed by the Sessions Judge suffers from any patent illegality. It is well settled that the court has a discretion in the matter of exercising the powers under Section 311 of the Code. It is not possible to hold in this case that the discretion has been exercised capriciously, or arbitrarily.

¶21

8 The fact that the statement of Dr.Sudhir Deodhar was not recorded in the course of investigation, though his name was mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR), and the fact that the application to summon him was made after the entire prosecution evidence was over and the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code, were the factors which could very well result in taking the view, as has been taken by the learned Magistrate and by the revisional court.

¶22

9 The writ jurisdiction is of extra ordinary nature. Similarly, the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is also required to be exercised primarily for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. This is not a case, where, either the Magistrate, or the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has exceeded the

¶23

avk 3/4

¶24

23-WP-1308-2012

¶25

jurisdiction vested in him, or has committed any patent illegality. There is, therefore, no case for invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this court.

¶26

10 The Petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs.

¶27

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)

¶28

avk 4/4

The State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay Murlidhar Padhye and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay Murlidhar Padhye and Ors.

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

Hitesh Jaysukhlal Doshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kalpana Dattatraya Bhosale Vs Nagabai Shambhu Dudhale and Anr.

Lakkadsing Sheetalsing Dudhani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satyavrat Arjun Kale Vs Anil Sambhaji Mane and Anr.

C. P. Ragini Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Subray Pandalik Pednekar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.