Allowed

Agnes Corera v. Inspector of Police and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Sept 2015REVN/419/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows the State to produce specimen handwriting documents at a late stage during trial. The court held that no serious prejudice would arise since the accused could raise contentions during final arguments and under Section 313(2) CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Documents were permitted to be produced by the prosecution to substantiate allegations prior to recording expert evidence.

Agnes Corera Vs Inspector of Police and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1 8.419.15 revn

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 419 OF 2015

¶3

Agnes Corera .....Applicant V/s. Inspector of Police and another ....Respondents

¶4

Ms. N. S. Nappinai i/b Noelle Ann Park for Applicant Ms. G. P. Mulekar APP for the State.

¶5

CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 21, 2015.

¶6

PC :

¶7

Heard. Learned APP waives service for respondent no. 2. Since this

¶8

Court is disposing of the application at the threshold, it would not be appropriate to issue notice to respondent no. 1. as the proceedings would be unnecessarily protracted.

¶9

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties.

¶10

1. Applicant herein happens to be accused in Special Case No. 21 of 2004

¶11

pending before Sessions Court, Greater Bombay. Petitioner herein is being prosecuted for offence punishable under section 120 (B), 420, 465, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code and section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Applicant herein impugnes the order dated 24/08/2015 passed by Special Judge, C.B.I., Greater Bombay thereby permitting the

¶12

ism

¶13

2 8.419.15 revn

¶14

prosecution to produce the documents below Exhibit 180 being specimen handwriting of witnesses at the fag end of the trial and just before the recording of substantive evidence of the hand writing expert and the Investigating Officer.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant rightly submits that prosecution had examined the first witness on 30/03/2010 and thereafter 17 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that one of the witness had admitted in the cross-examination that his specimen signatures were obtained in the course of investigation. Prosecution had not placed the relevant records under section 294 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 i.e. before commencement of trial and accused had not opportunity to admit or deny the existence as well as the contents of the said documents. Learned counsel further submits that introducing evidence at this stage would be to the detriment of defence of the accused as the accused had already disclosed the defence in the course of cross-examination. According to learned counsel, it causes grave prejudice to the accused.

¶16

As against this, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 submits that no prejudice would be caused to the accused as the accused was fully

¶17

ism

¶18

3 8.419.15 revn

¶19

aware that specimen signatures were obtained in the course of crossexamination and they were admitted by the witness. It is also submitted that failure to place the relevant documents should not deprive the prosecution to lead the evidence to substantiate the allegations.

¶20

Taking into consideration the rival submissions, this Court is of the opinion that no serious prejudice would be caused to the accused by introducing the documents at a belated stage, since accused has opportunity to raise all the contentions at the time of final arguments and bring it to the notice of the Presiding Officer that evidence which is introduced at a later stage cannot be considered as a cogent, consistent and corroborating evidence. Accused/applicant is at liberty to raise all contentions in the course of arguments as well as filing written statement under section 313 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the learned Special Court shall consider the contentions raised in say filed under section 313 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. All contentions raised in the application are kept open.

¶21

1. Application stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶22

1. Rule is discharged.

¶23

(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)

ism

4 8.419.15 revn

CERTIFICATE

Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed order.

¶28

ism

Agnes Corera v. Inspector of Police and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Agnes Corera v. Inspector of Police and Anr.

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

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs Pankaj Arora and Ors.

Jalindar Tukaram Jarande and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivaji Govind Bansode Vs Sunanda Shivaji Bansode and Ors.

M/S Janakalyan Sahakari Bank Limited Vs Navinchandra Jethalal Mehta and Anr.

Rajesh Abhichand Doshi and Anr. Vs Poornima Prakash Dahiya and Ors.

Priyesh Bheda Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.