Disposed

Navin Kumar Chhotelal Tiwari and Ors. v. Union of India

Bombay HC21 Sept 2017APPLN/159/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application seeking transfer of a Sessions case and re-examination of witnesses, the High Court held the transfer prayer unsustainable due to the judge's transfer. It directed the applicant to file an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in the Trial Court for re-examination.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed off with liberty to file an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in the Trial Court for re-examination of witnesses.

Navin Kumar Chhotelal Tiwari and Ors. Vs Union… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 /2appln.159-17-18

¶2

Nalawade

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.159 OF 2017

¶5

Navin Kumar C. Tiwari & ors. ...Applicant. vs. Union of Territory of Daman ...Repsondent.

¶6

Mr. Rajendra Sorankar for the Applicant. Mrs.P.H. Kantharia, Special PP for Respondent No.2. Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP. for the State.

¶7

CORAM: A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 21st September, 2017

¶8

P.C.

¶9

The present application under Section-482 of the Cr.P.C. is for the following reliefs:-

¶10

a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and issue appropriate order and direction inter alia calling for recording and proceedings in Sessions Case No.24 of 2016 pending on the file of Special Court at Silvasa and after going through the material on record this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and direct to transfer of Sessions Case No.24 of 2016 to any other Court.

¶11

b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and direct Court taking up the case in Sessions Case No.24 of 2016 to re-examine the witnesses i.e. PW1, PW-2 and PW-3 viz. Ms. Anju Nara Sultan Ahmed, Mr. Hitesh Babu Sonawane and Dr.Shalesh Arlekar respectively and allow/afford reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to cross examine them.

¶12

The learned Special PP on instructions submitted

¶13

2 /2appln.159-17-18

¶14

that as a matter of fact the prayer clause (a) as of today does not survive, for the reason that the concerned Judge against whom grievance is made by the applicant has already been transferred and new Judge has assumed charge and seized of Sessions Case No.24/2016. In view thereof, the prayer clause (a) as of today does not survive.

¶15

As far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, it appears from the record that the applicant at the first instance has not preferred application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. in the Trial Court for re-examination of the concerned witnesses. According to me it is necessary for the applicant to file an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. in the Trial Court at the first instance. By reserving the liberty of the applicant to file an application before the Trial Court, the present application is disposed off.

¶16

Disposed off with the aforesaid liberty.

Navin Kumar Chhotelal Tiwari and Ors. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navin Kumar Chhotelal Tiwari and Ors. v. Union of India

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

Rajkumar Dhundappa Yadagond Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sameer Imdad Shete and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Christina Stephen Dsouza Vs the State of Maharashtra

Janardan Yellayya Mittapally and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dattatray Namdev Bhagat Vs Suman Bhaskar Koli and Anr.

Mukund Ramdas Rakate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.