This applicant challenged an order permitting re-examination of the complainant. The High Court examined the necessity under the cited precedent and granted permission subject to safeguards. The appeal was dismissed without quashing the lower order.
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.
apl378.19.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.378 OF 2019
R/o Jai Ambe Steel, New MIDC, Jalna
---VERSUS---
apl378.19.odt
2
Shri J.B. Gandhi, Advocate for applicants.
Shri Pushkar Deshpande, Adv. h/f Shri A.S. Shukla, Advocate for non-applicant no.1. Shri S.A. Ashirgade, Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant no.2.
CORAM : G.A. SANAP, J. DATE : DECEMBER 20, 2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
apl378.19.odt
3
that relevant facts were pleaded in the application to justify the reexamination of the witness. He submitted that in the totality of the facts and particularly in view of the cross-examination, learned Magistrate found that the re-examination was necessary to explain the ambiguous circumstances brought on record. He further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramni @ Rameshwar (supra) has elaborately dealt with the scope of the reexamination. In this case, it is held that the question in the reexamination cannot be confined to ambiguity alone, which arises in cross-examination. The questions can be put to obtain the explanation required for any matter referred to in cross-examination.
apl378.19.odt
4
impugned order was passed. In order to take care of the interest of the applicants, the learned Magistrate has observed that the applicant would have right to cross-examine the witness with regard to the answers given in the re-examination.
JUDGE
Wagh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Criminal Jurisdiction Court can permit re-examination of a witness at the instance of the complainant in a crim.觉 petition without violating the rights of the accused.
Whether the reliance on the principle of Ramni @ Rameshwar by the lower court justified the exercise of discretion to permit re-examination.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramni @ Rameshwar Vs. State of M.P.Referred¶21
AIR 1999 SC 3544 · Who else cites this
Ramni @ Rameshwar (supra)Referred¶25
AIR 1999 SC 3544 · Who else cites this
Greenfield Plantation Private Ltd. & Ors.
G.A. Sanap
Wagh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
