Dismissed

Pramod Ramesh Chougule v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Dec 2021WP/5318/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the trial court's rejection of an application under Section 311 CrPC to recall prosecution witnesses. The court held the petitioner's delayed application was an abuse of process intended to protract the trial.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; trial court's order rejecting the application to recall witnesses upheld.

Pramod Ramesh Chougule Vs the State of Maharashtra — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1/6

¶2

WP-5318-2019-SR.5 2December,2021.

¶3

Rane

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 5318 OF 2019

¶7

PRAMOD RAMESH CHOUGULE ) PETITIONER

¶8

V/S.

¶9

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ) RESPONDENT

¶10

¶11

Mr. Ajit M. Savagave, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for State.

¶13

Coram : Sandeep K. Shinde, J.

¶14

Thursday, 2^nd December, 2021.

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

This petition assails, the order dated 12^th June, 2019

¶17

in Regular Criminal Case No.140/2013, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaysingpur by which petitioner’s application under Section 311 of the Code of

¶18

Criminal Procedure, to recall, the prosecution witnesses

¶19

no.4 and 5, has been rejected.

¶20

2/6

¶21

WP-5318-2019-SR.5 2December,2021.

¶22

Rane

¶23

2. BACKGROUND FACTS :

¶24

(a) Petitioner, is facing the trial in RCC No.140/2013, on the charge of committing, offences under Sections 324 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code in RCC No.140/2013.

¶25

(b) Charge was framed on 20^th April, 2014. On 7^th May, 2019 prosecution examined witness no.4. On the said day, applicant-accused was absent. To afford opportunity to cross-examine, the witness, P.W.no.4 was summoned on 30^th June, 2018. On this day, accused did not remain present. Obviously, Witness no.4, was not cross-examined. The learned trial Court, therefore passed “No cross” order.

¶26

(c) On 5^th December 2018, prosecution examined P.W.No.5 (complainant). At the material time, applicant was absent. Yet, to afford him opportunity to cross-examine the witness, P.W.No.5 was summoned on 19^th December, 2018.

¶27

3/6

¶28

WP-5318-2019-SR.5 2December,2021.

¶29

Rane

¶30

Even on that date, the accused did not remain present and applicant’s application seeking exemption of presence was rejected by the Court. In consequence thereof, “No cross” order was passed.

¶31

It may be stated that the P.W.5 (complainant), as it appears, was ordinarily residing at USA. Although, he remained present on two occasions, the accused did not cross-examine him.

¶32

Therefore, frst “No cross” order was passed on

¶33

30^th June, 2018 and second “No cross” order was passed on 19^th December, 2018.

¶34

On 21^st February, 2019 applicant moved an

¶35

application seeking order, to recall the “No cross” orders passed on 30^th June, 2018 and 19^th December, 2018.

¶36

4/6 WP-5318-2019-SR.5 2December,2021.

¶37

Rane

¶38

That after hearing the prosecution and the

¶39

accused, the application was rejected on 12^th June, 2019. This order is assailed in this petition.

¶40

It may be noted that, application to recall the P.W.4 was preferred nearly after seven months. There is

¶41

no justifcation, for such unreasonable delay in preferring the application. This fact, itself indicates and suggest that the petitioner-accused was only interested in protracting the trial.

¶42

Insofar as “No cross” order passed on 19^th December, 2018 is concerned, it may be stated, this witness no.4, came all the way from USA, on two occasions, however, for one or other reason, the accused did not crossexamine him.

¶43

Thus, taking overall view of the matter, it is to

¶44

be held that the petitioner-accused was, simply interested in protracting the trial. It is nothing, but abuse of process of law.

¶45

5/6

¶46

WP-5318-2019-SR.5 2December,2021.

¶47

Rane

¶48

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted

¶49

that, no party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting

¶50

the errors and further, that functioning of the Court is not to count the errors committed by the parties or to fnd out and declare who among the parties performed better, but endeavor of the Court is to arrive at a truthful fnding in a criminal prosecution and to ensure that the right of the accused of fair trial is adequately protected. In support of this submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Kishor Anandrao Gaidhane Versus. State of Maharashtra, 2018 All.M.R. (Cri.) 3470 . In the said case, the application was moved to recall the witness on the ground that due to inadvertence, certain questions could not be put in the cross-examination by the counsel. Therefore, the facts of the cited case were, altogether different, from the case in hand. Herein, there is suffcient material on record to infer and hold, that the applicant-accused was only, interested in protracting the trial. In view of facts of the case, the trial

¶51

6/6

¶52

WP-5318-2019-SR.5 2December,2021.

¶53

Rane

¶54

Court has not committed any error in exercise of the jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed.

¶55

Digitally signed by NEETA NEETA SHAILESH SHAILESH SAWANT SAWANT Date: 2021.12.03 16:54:56 +0530

¶56

(Sandeep K. Shinde, J.)

Pramod Ramesh Chougule v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Ramesh Chougule 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parmeshwar @ Bhau Nana Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shrirang Ramji Kesarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sadanand Shankar Bhatose and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sudhish Mahabal Hegde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Madhura Milind Gadgil Vs Milind Neelkant Gadgil and Ors.

Vinayak Sheshayya Sheregar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra