The High Court set aside an order of no cross-examination in a Sessions Case, directed the prosecution to produce witnesses on a scheduled date, and ordered the petitioners to deposit trial costs.
Set aside the order of no cross-examination; directed parties to cooperate for cross-examination and deposit Rs. 10,000/- as costs.
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.
515.WP1753_2019.doc
Vidya Amin.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 1753 OF 2019
Monika Sachin Wadkar & Ors. … Petitioners
vs.
The State of Maharashtra … Respondent
Mr. Satyavrat Joshi i/b. Sunil S. Kamble, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the respondent/State.
CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: 3rd April, 2019
P.C. :
Upon mentioning, taken on production board.
November, 2018 below Exhibits 151 and 152 in Sessions Case No. 320 of 2011 and seeks permission that PW-1 and PW-2 are to
be called for cross-examination and the order of No Cross is to be set aside.
1 of 2
515.WP1753_2019.doc
pending. He submitted that the counsel was not present when the witnesses appeared and the chief was recorded. He submitted that on the next date, two Advocates, who are appearing for all the petitioners, shall remain present and conduct the crossexamination.
(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)
2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order directing no cross-examination of prosecution witnesses should be set aside and the petitioners granted permission to cross-examine.
Monika Sachin Wadkar and Others
The State of Maharashtra
Mridula Bhathkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
