Dismissed

Sangita Narayan Ghule and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC4 Feb 2014WP/131/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Writ Petition No. 131 of 2014, the Bombay High Court rejected the petitioners’ plea seeking certiorari to quash a Magistrate’s order summoning unlisted prosecution witnesses. The bench held that Section 311 of the CrPC allows summoning such witnesses to prove existing prosecution records without prejudice to the accused’s right to cross-examination.

What did the court decide?

The petition was rejected and the impugned order allowing the summons of witnesses was upheld.

Sangita Narayan Ghule and Others Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Cri.W.P.131.14.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 131 OF 2014

¶5

Sangita D/o Narayan Ghule and others.

¶6

.. PETITIONERS

¶7

-VERSUS-

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

and another.

¶10

.. RESPONDENTS

¶11

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. S.W. Munde

¶12

APP for Respondent no.1 : Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar

¶13

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

¶14

Dated: February 04, 2014

¶15

ORAL ORDER :-

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶17

The petitioners are the accused in R.C.C. no. 122/2009. After the evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses had been led, the prosecution made an application (Exhibit 132) to summon three witnesses, who were not named in the charge-sheet. These witnesses are the Principals of different educational institutions. This application was opposed to on behalf of the accused persons but, the learned Magistrate, by his order dated 16.01.2014, allowed the said application.

¶18

Cri.W.P.131.14.odt

¶19

¶20

Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

¶21

I have gone through the impugned order. I have also gone through the Application (Exhibit 132) and the say filed by the accused persons opposing the same.

¶22

It appears that the prosecution case is that the petitioner no.1 was shown as studying in some educational institutions and at that time was also shown as working elsewhere. It appears from the case of the prosecution that certain false entires and fabrication of record was made for the purpose of showing the presence of the petitioner no.1 in the educational institution and/or at the place where she was said to be working. The documents showing the attendance of the petitioner no.1 have already been produced before the Court and marked as Articles ‘A’ to ‘N’. However, these documents were not properly proved. The Court, therefore, thought it fit to summon the said witnesses to prove the contents of the said documents.

¶23

The powers vested in a Court of law by virtue of section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are wide and merely because a witness was not cited earlier, the Court cannot be precluded from exercising the powers under the said section. The question would be whether the evidence of such a witness is necessary or desirable for a just decision.

¶24

Cri.W.P.131.14.odt

¶25

¶26

Surely, the powers under the said section cannot be exercised for permitting the prosecution to introduce a new case, or substitute its original case by a new one. It is also true that such powers cannot be exercised, if they would prejudice the accused persons in their defence.

¶27

However, in the instant case, there is no introduction of any new case. What is being done is only that evidence is being adduced to establish the same case i.e. the stand of the prosecution, which existed from beginning. The petitioners are bound to get an opportunity to cross - examine the said witnesses, if they would so desire. It is apparent from the order passed by the Magistrate that he would keep the evidence of those witnesses confined to the aspect of proving the relevant record; and if the record is not relevant or admissible, it is open for the petitioners to agitate such issue.

¶28

Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that no case for interfering with the impugned order by exercising the writ jurisdiction of this Court is made out.

¶29

The petition is rejected.

¶30

( ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. )

¶31

sga/-

¶32

Sangita Narayan Ghule and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangita Narayan Ghule and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Shamrao Kharat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sambhaji Balaji Dhembre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sahebrao Appa Ingale and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Syed Jawed Syed Mahemood Vs Nasra Fatema Syed Jawed and Another

Nilesh Govind Aarde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Zafar Ali Khan Mahemud Ali Khan Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra