Quashed

Saikrupa Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd. through Its Rajkumar S/O. Sudamrao Dhamdhere and Others v. Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Sonai through Tukaram S/O. Rajaram Raut

Bombay HC3 Apr 2018WP/391/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition/quasi-writ petition challenged the trial court's order allowing correction of a witness deposition. The High Court held that the trial court failed to read over the deposition to the witness under Section 278 Cr.P.C., denying the opportunity to verify corrections. The orders were quashed and the matter remanded.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders allowing correction of deposition quashed. Matters remanded to trial court to call witness, read over deposition, and dispose following Section 278 Cr.P.C.

Saikrupa Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

05.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.391 OF 2018 WITH

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 392 OF 2018

¶5

1. Shri Saikurpa Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd., At Post: Hiradgaon, Tq.Shrigonda, Dist.Ahmednagar. Through its Managing Director Shri Rajkumar S/o Sudamrao Dhamdhere.

¶6

2. Rajkumar S/o Sudamrao Dhamdhere, Age:54 years, Occu:Service as Managing Director, Shri Saikurupa Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd., At Post: Hiradgaon, Tq.Shrigonda, Dist.Ahmednagar.

¶7

3. Vikram S/o Babanrao Pachpute, Age 34 years, Occu.Agril. and Chairman Shri Saikrupa Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd., At Post: Hiradgaon, Tq.Shrigonda, Dist.Ahmednagar. ... Petitioners

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1. Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Sonai,Tq.Newasa,Dist.Ahmednagar Through its Authorised Officer, In-charge Chief Accountant, Tukaram S/o Rajaram Raut, Age:58 years, Occu:Service, R/o Sonai, Tq,Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. ... Respondent

¶10

Mr. Vikram S. Kadam, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Advocate for the respondent.

¶11

1/5

¶12

05.odt

¶13

CORAM: K. L. WADANE, J.

¶14

 DATE:3rd April, 2018

¶15

JUDGMENT:

¶16

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the

¶17

consent of the parties, the matters are taken up for
final hearing.

¶18

2. Petitioner No.1 is a private limited company,
registered under the Companies Act. Petitioners No. 2
and 3 are Managing Directors and Chairman of the said
company, respectively. The respondent is original
complainant in SCC Nos.37/2016 and 38/2016, pending
before the 2nd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Newasa.

¶19

3. The respondent/original complainant filed
affidavit of evidence of one Tkaram Raut in both the
matters at Exh. 34 and Exh. 32 respectively. The
petitioners cross examined the said witness and after
completion of evidence, the matter was adjourned to 4h
January, 2018. Examination in chief and cross
examination of the said witness was over on 11.12.2017.

¶20

On 4thJanuary, 2018, the respondent has filed

¶21

applications Exh.69 and Exh.67 for correction of the
said deposition recorded in both the matters. After

¶22

2/5

¶23

05.odt

¶24

hearing both the sides, the learned Magistrate has
allowed Applications Ex.69 and 67 and has corrected
certain sentences recorded in the deposition.

¶25

4. Mr. Kadam, the learned counsel for the

¶26

petitioners in both the petitions has submitted that
the evidence of the witness was over on 11.12.2017 and
subsequently, on 4th January, 2018, applications were
given for correction of the deposition. By referring
the dates, Mr. Kadam argued that it is not possible
for the Magistrate to remember each and every sentence
recorded by him long back on 11.12.2017.

¶27

5. Mr. Sapkal, the learned counsel for the

¶28

respondent, by referring to the evidence recorded in
para 4 of the cross examination, has pointed out that

¶29

it is a clear typographical mistake. He has referred
the earlier suggestion and subsequent suggestion and

¶30

by referring this evidence, has submitted that the
evidence to the extent of sentences corrected is a
typographical mistake and that can be corrected.

¶31

6. On perusal of the record, it appears that after
completion of cross examination of the witness, the
learned trial court has not read over the deposition

¶32

3/5

¶33

05.odt

¶34

to the witness and therefore, the learned Magistrate

¶35

has not followed the provisions of section 278 of the
Cr.P.C. If the Magistrate would have read over the
deposition to the witness immediately, the concerned
witness could have pointed out the correctness or
incorrectness of the evidence led by him. Here, in

¶36

the present matter, there was no opportunity given to
the witness to say about the correctness of his
evidence recorded in the matter. This mistake is
occurred because the concerned Magistrate has not
followed the provisions of section 278 Cr.P.C.

¶37

7. Looking to the dates of recording of cross
examination of the witness and submission of the
applications for correction of deposition, it is
impossible for the learned Magistrate to remember each
and everything which was recorded on previous date i.e.
before 24 days. Therefore, opportunity must be given
to the witness to explain whether there is

¶38

typographical mistake while recording his deposition
or otherwise.

¶39

8. In view of the above, the impugned orders are

¶40

quashed and set aside.

¶41

4/5

¶42

05.odt

¶43

9. The matters are remanded to the trial court. The

¶44

trial court shall call upon the concerned witness and
thereafter shall follow the provisions of section 278
Cr.P.C. and dispose of the matters in accordance with
law.

¶45

10. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.

¶46

(K. L. WADANE, J.)

¶47

JPC

¶48

5/5

Saikrupa Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd. through Its Rajkumar S/O. Sudamrao Dhamdhere and Others v. Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Sonai through Tukaram S/O. Rajaram Raut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saikrupa Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd. through Its Rajkumar S/O. Sudamrao Dhamdhere and Others v. Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Sonai through Tukaram S/O. Rajaram Raut

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

Arjun Bhaurao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pramod Ananda Gujar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kusum Shriram Bhosale and Ors. Vs Shripad Shankarrao Burkule and Ors.

Saikrupa Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd. through Its Rajkumar S/O. Sudamrao Dhamdhere and Others Vs Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Sonai through Tukaram S/O. Rajaram Raut

Dattatray Kalidas Puri Vs Mr Kalidas S/O Kashinath Puri and Anr.

Mrs Santoshi Dattatray Puri Vs Mr Kalidas S/O Kashinath Puri and Anr.