Dismissed

Kishorkumar Dayalal Doshi v. the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Yavatmal and Others

Bombay HC27 Jul 2016APEAL/179/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal seeking leave under Section 372 CrPC to examine a handwriting expert. The Court held that the appellant failed to utilize the opportunity during evidence recording, and the expert report was irrelevant to the trial charge.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to examine handwriting expert rejected; appeal dismissed.

Kishorkumar Dayalal Doshi Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2016)

Order

2707apeal179.15

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

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 179/2015.

¶6

Kishorkumar Dayalal Doshi - VERSUS-

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others.

¶8

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

¶9

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

¶10

DATE : JULY 27, 2016.

¶11

Heard Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel

¶12

for the appellant, Mrs. K.S. Joshi, learned A.P.P. for respondent no.1 and Shri V. Awchat, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4.

¶13

Appellant, who has sought leave under Section 372 of Criminal Procedure Code is complainant in Criminal Case No.540/2005 and an informant. It appears that after orders of this Court

¶14

dated 10.01.2013 in Criminal Writ Petition

¶15

No.502/2012, Criminal Case No. 540/2005 has been tried as Warrant case under Section 210 of Criminal

Order

2707apeal179.15

Procedure Code along with R.C.C.No.71/2013.

¶20

Shri Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in private complaint, at the stage of evidence before charge, the appellant had examined hand writing expert. After warrant case began, he twice made efforts to get that on record of warrant case. However, the efforts failed. The prosecutor entrusted with prosecution did not examine the hand writing expert and this resulted in acquittal of the accused persons.

¶21

Shri Awchat, learned Counsel for

¶22

respondent nos. 2 to 4 and Mrs. Joshi, learned A.P.P. for respondent no.1 have invited our attention to the impugned judgment. They point out that after recording evidence of prosecution witnesses, present appellant filed a Pursis Exh.189, closing his case. At that time he did not seek leave to examine hand writing expert. It is further submitted that earlier orders passed by the Trial Court rejecting his applications at Exh. 120 and 139 for accepting evidence recorded at EBC stage, was never challenged by him and even today those orders are not assailed.

¶23

Our attention is also drawn to the fact that

Order

2707apeal179.15

even otherwise, trial Court has looked into the report of hand writing expert at Exh. 233 and found it irrelevant for the purpose of trial.

¶28

We find that before recording of evidence in warrant case, two applications i.e. Exh. 120 and 139 were moved by the appellant for treating evidence recorded at the stage of evidence before charge in private Criminal Case No. 540/2005, as part of evidence in R.C.C.No. 71/2013. Those applications were rejected. Recording of evidence began thereafter. After recording of evidence of SubRegistrar, Ramesh and evidence of appellant/informant, he filed Pursis Exh.189 and closed his side. Thus, he had opportunity to examine hand writing expert, but, that was not utilized.

¶29

Perusal of paragraph no.15 of the judgment of the trial Court reveals that report of hand writing expert Exh.233, could have been only decisive to find out whether signatures on Will were made by the deceased or not. It could not have been used to implicate any of the respondents before this Court. Thus, we find substance in contention of respondents that said report was not relevant for the purpose of

Order

2707apeal179.15

prosecution.

We therefore, find no case made out for grant of leave. The same is rejected. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE

Rgd.

CERTIFICATE

I certify that this judgment/order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed judgment/order.

¶39

Uploaded by : R.G. Dhuriya. Uploaded on : 28.07.2016

Kishorkumar Dayalal Doshi v. the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Yavatmal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishorkumar Dayalal Doshi v. the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Yavatmal and Others

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

Jayant Shikshan Sanstha, Amgaon, Gondia, Thr. Its Secretary and 2 Others Vs Shri Nandkumar, State of Maha. of Education, Mumbai

Ku. Rajani D/O Chandrabhan Madvai Vs Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and 3 Others

Piyush Nemichand Dhoot Vs Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University, through Its Registrar and Another

Shri Ramrao S/O Nagorao Shingare Vs State of Mah., through Its Principal Secretary, (Service) Gen. Admin. Dept. Mumbai and 3 Others

Shailesh H. Kulkarni Vs Union of India, through the Ministry of Railway, New Delhi (Dismissed) and 6 Others

Western Coalfields Limited, through Its Chief General Manager, Nagpur Vs Shri Kishore S/O Jairam Chakole and Another