Allowed

Pramod S/O. Manohar Bagul v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC14 Jan 2021WP/457/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal writ petition challenged an order refusing the petitioner's cross-examination of a prosecution witness due to counsel's late appearance. The High Court held that the procedure should serve justice, not harm the party, and quashed the order allowing the witness to be cross-examined.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order refusing cross-examination was quashed; applications to recall the witness were allowed for cross-examination.

Pramod S/O. Manohar Bagul Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

927 wp 457 20.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

 CRIMINALWRIT PETITION NO. 457 OF 2020

¶4

Pramod s/o Manohar Bagul,
Age 29 years, Occ. UTP (Pensioner)
Residing at Savandgaon Shivar,
Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶5

…Petitioner.

¶6

VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
Through in charge
Police Station, Vaijapur, Tq.
Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶7

…Respondent.

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shejwal Arun S.
APP for the Respondent/State : Mr. S.W. Mundhe.

¶9

CORAM: MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE:14.01.2021.

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶11

Heard the learned A.P.P. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith.
The learned A.P.P. waives service. Matter is heard finally.

¶12

2.The petitioner is facing a charge in Sessions Case No. 72/2016 and
the trial in which is going on in the Sessions Court at Vaijapur.

¶13

3.It appears that the prosecution examined witness Shashikant
Vishwanath Tayade (P.W.9) on 01.01.2020. Since the petitioner's advocate
did not turn up to cross-examine the witness, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge passed the impugned order to the effect that there shall be
no cross-examination of the witness on behalf of the petitioner.

¶14

4.The petitioner requested for setting aside that order by filing
application (Exh. 84) and by filing application (Exhibit 85) he requested to

¶15

1/2

¶16

927 wp 457 20.odt

¶17

recall the witness.

¶18

5.By the impugned common order the learned Additional Sessions
Judge has rejected both the applications. Hence this petition.

¶19

6.As can be seen, the learned advocate for the petitioner did appear
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at late hours but on the same
day on which the examination in chief of the witness was recorded. It is not
that he had not turned up at all. It is a specific stand of the petitioner that it
is because of the inability of the learned advocate that cross examination
could not be conducted on his behalf.

¶20

7.It is trite principle that actus curiae neminem gravabit. The party
should not suffer for the mistake of the Court. The procedure is handmaid
of justice. It is not that the petitioner was not at all ready to go ahead, with
the trial. His attempt to call the witness back by getting the ‘no-cross’ order
set aside is indicative of his alertness. It appears that it is only because of
this circumstance that cross-examination of the witness could not be
conducted on his behalf. No prejudice is likely to be caused to the
prosecution even if the witness is now allowed to be cross-examined on his
behalf.

¶21

8.The whole approach of the learned Judge is rigid and not conducive
to the administration of justice.

¶22

9.The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned common order on the
applications (Exhibits 84 and 85) are quashed and set aside. The
applications stand allowed.

¶23

10.The Rule is accordingly made absolute.

¶24

 (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)

¶25

mkd/-

¶26

2/2

Pramod S/O. Manohar Bagul v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod S/O. Manohar Bagul v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinayak Rameshrao Tadse Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Abrar Shaikh Shamshuddin Vs the State of Maharashtra

Waseem S/O Rauf Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Harishchandra Jagannath Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahul Shivprasad Agrawat Vs the State of Maharashtra

Husna Begum W/O. Mohmmad Ibrahim Vs the State of Maharashtra