Dismissed

Rajesh Dhannalal Daware v. State of Maharashtra (through P.S.O. P.S. Lakadganj, Nagpur)

Bombay HC5 May 2015APPA/289/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal application filed by original accused seeking direction to record additional evidence of investigating officer and opportunity for cross-examination, alleging defective cross-examination due to absence of counsel. Court rejected the application, finding it to be an attempt to protract the appeal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Application seeking direction to record additional evidence and grant opportunity for cross-examination is rejected.

Rajesh Dhannalal Daware Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

APEAL140-16.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

¶4

Criminal Application (APPA) No. 289/2016 in Criminal Appeal No.140/2016

¶5

(Rajesh Dhannalal Daware .vs. State of Maharashtra )

¶6

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

¶7

Mr. Mir Nagman Ali, Advocate for Appellant. Mrs. B.H. Dangre, Public Prosecutor for Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : B.R. Gavai & Mrs. Swapna S. Joshi, JJ. DATED : April 27, 2016.

¶9

The present application is filed by the applicant/original accused no.1 for direction to the Principal District Judge, Nagpur to record the additional evidence of investigating officer Shri S.K. Jaiswal and to grant opportunity to cross-examine him.

¶10

The application is sought to be made on the ground that when on 23.06.2015 the investigating officer was cross-examined by the appellant, the counsel who was appointed from the Legal Aid Panel Shri Pradeep Agrawal did not remain present and the investigating officer was cross-examined by Ms. Rajashri Wasnik, Advocate, who was not acquainted with the facts of the present case and she did not properly crossexamine the prosecution witness. It is, therefore, submitted that the original accused no.1 did not have a fair opportunity to cross-examine the investigating officer.

¶11

The present application is filed after we have heard the appeal for two days.

¶12

¶13

APEAL140-16.odt

¶14

The evidence of PW50 investigating officer was completed on 24.06.2015. The impugned judgment is passed on 4.2.2016. It could thus be seen that the period between the date on which the evidence of PW50 is completed and the impugned judgment is delivered, is more than 7 months.

¶15

The perusal of the record would reveal that even during the trial, attempts were made on behalf of the accused to protract the trial. We find that the present application is nothing else but an additional attempt to protract the hearing of the present appeal, after the same is heard for two days.

¶16

The application is, therefore rejected.

¶17

JUDGE

¶18

JUDGE

¶19

halwai

Rajesh Dhannalal Daware v. State of Maharashtra (through P.S.O. P.S. Lakadganj, Nagpur)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Dhannalal Daware v. State of Maharashtra (through P.S.O. P.S. Lakadganj, Nagpur)

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

Smt. Jaitoon Fateh Khatri W/O Fateh Mohammed Khatri and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Sadar P.S. Nagpur

Shantaram Govindrao Pimple and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary of Home, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Ibrahim Khan S/O Niyamat Khan (in Jail) Vs State of Maharashtra, through Deputy Inspector General Prisons (Eastern Region), Nagpur and Another

Mohd. Sagir Mohd. Bashir Chawhan (in Jail) Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and Another

Pankaj Kantilal Bafna (in Jail) Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Yerwada, Pune and Others

Santosh S/O Rampratap Maheshwari Vs the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Rajura, Chandrapur and Another