Four criminal applications were filed by appellants challenging an order and seeking the prosecution's admission or denial of specific prosecution witness statements under Section 294 Cr.P.C.
No further order; Applications disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
jdk 1 6.cr.appa.1067_1069_1070_1073_1074.2016.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1067 OF 2016 IN
CRI. APPEAL NO. 487 OF 2010
Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah
.. Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1069 OF 2016 IN CRI. APPEAL NO. 1020 OF 2009
Jaswant Chatur Nai and Ors.
.. Applicants
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1070 OF 2016 IN CRI. APPEAL NO. 1021 OF 2009
Raju Babulal Soni and Anr.
.. Applicants
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
jdk 2 6.cr.appa.1067_1069_1070_1073_1074.2016.doc
WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1073 OF 2016 IN CRI. APPEAL NO. 1022 OF 2009
Govindbhai Nai and Anr.
.. Applicants
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1074 OF 2016 IN CRI. APPEAL NO. 1023 OF 2009
Kesharbhai Khimabhai Vahonia and Ors.
.. Applicants
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
Mr. H.H. Ponda Advocate i/b Mr. Hitesh P. Shah Advocate for Applicants
Mr. Arfan Sait A.P.P. for the State
Mr. H.S.Venegavkar counsel for the C.B.I.
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 30, 2016
P.C.:
1 These applications dated 22.8.2016 have been preferred by the applicants-original accused nos. 1 to 12 in the
jdk 3 6.cr.appa.1067_1069_1070_1073_1074.2016.doc
above appeals under the provisions of Section 294 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2 The prayer in these applications is that the prosecution i.e. Respondents herein under the provisions of Section 294 of Code of Criminal Procedure to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents viz. Statements of the prosecution witnesses Bilkis Yakub Rasul (PW 1) dated 13.3.2002, Saddam Hussain (PW 8) dated 14.3.2002 and Abdul Issa Ghanchi (PW 24) dated 18.3.2002 for the purpose of proving omissions and contradictions
3 The learned counsel for the prosecution i.e. C.B.I. by filing reply dated 29.8.2016 has refused to admit the said documents i.e. statements of these three witnesses under the provisions of Section 294 of Cr.P.C. In this view of the matter, no further orders are necessary. All these applications are disposed of accordingly.
[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
kandarkar
3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should adjudicate upon Applicants' prayer under Section 294 Cr.P.C. given the prosecution's refusal to admit specific prosecution witness statements.
Whether any further orders are required given the refusal of the prosecution to admit the documents.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah
Jaswant Chatur Nai
Raju Babulal Soni
Govindbhai Nai
Kesharbhai Khimabhai Vahonia
The State of Maharashtra
V.K.Tahilramani
Mridula Bhaktar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
