Allowed

Vijay Shamsunder Prabhu v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Apr 2019WP/816/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged the admission of a Forensic Voice Examination Report by a Special Judge (CBI) under Section 293 CrPC without an expert to prove its contents. The High Court allowed the petition, holding the report inadmissible until its contents were proved.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed and the matter was disposed of.

Vijay Shamsunder Prabhu Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

901-wp-816-2019.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 816 OF 2019

¶4

Mr.Vijay Shamsunder Prabhu

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents

¶8

-----

¶9

Mr.Kunal D. Ambulkar for the Petitioner. Mrs.M.R.Tidke, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr.H.S.Venegaokar for Respondent No.2.

¶10

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 11 APRIL 2019

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

This petition is directed against the order dated 1^st February, 2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI), Court Room No. 53, Greater Bombay thereby exhibiting and admitting the Forensic Voice Examination Report dated 5^th February, 2007 in CBI Special Case No. 40 of 2008.

¶13

Heard submissions of both the sides.

¶14

On 15^th November, 2018, the prosecution had moved an application

¶15

under section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Cr.P.C”) for directly exhibiting the Forensic Voice Examination Report so it

1/2

Trupti

901-wp-816-2019.doc

can be read in the evidence under section 293 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner/accused has objected to exhibit and admit the said report by submitting a written reply dated 14^th January, 2019. In the said reply, he has mentioned that an expert is required to be examined. Despite this objection of the petitioner/accused, the learned Judge accepted the said report, which is at exhibit 146, in CBI Special Case No. 40 of 2008.

¶20

The said document i.e., report cannot be read in evidence unless the contents of document are proved by calling an expert by the prosecution. While exhibiting the document, the Court should have taken a note that the document is exhibited subject to prove all the contents of document or should not have exhibited the said document unless it is proved through a competent witness. Now as it is exhibited as 146, the prosecution to prove the contents of documents otherwise it cannot be read in the evidence.

¶21

With this, Writ Petition is allowed and accordingly disposed of.

¶22

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶23

2/2

¶24

Trupti

Vijay Shamsunder Prabhu v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Shamsunder Prabhu v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Vipul Chunilal Chetalia Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hemant Bhatt Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Manish Vinod Kumar Vs Bhavani Manish Kumar and Ors.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Chhabutai Kisan Suryavanshi and Ors.

Mr. Mulchand Dhanji Shah and Anr. Vs Mr. Noordam Iraj Ahmed and Ors.

Ramkishan Panditrao Kinhalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra