Allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Jitendra Sitaram Wagh and Others

Bombay HC16 Nov 2022REVN/234/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision application seeking to quash an order refusing witness summons. The Court held that the lower court erred in assessing witness importance before examination under Section 230 of CrPC and ordered summons issuance to relevant witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Witness summons issued to witnesses as prayed; earlier order refusing summons quashed.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Jitendra Sitaram… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

 945-Cri.Rev.Appln.234-22.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

945 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.234 OF 2022

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS

¶6

JITENDRA SITARAM WAGH AND OTHERS

¶7

APP for Applicant-State : Mr. V. M. Kagne.
Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Smt. S. E. Waghmare
(Appointed) – absent.

¶8

CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE :16.11.2022

¶9

PER COURT:-

¶10

1. Heard the learned APP for the applicant-State.

¶11

2. The revision has been preferred against the order of

¶12

learned District Judge-1 refusing to issue the witness summons

¶13

to the Doctor and carrier in Sessions Trial No.173 of 2014,

¶14

dated 07.06.2022.

¶15

3. Learned counsel Smt. Waghmare was appointed to plead for respondent Nos.1 to 4, but she did not appear.

¶16

4. Learned APP would submit that the witnesses who were

¶17

requested to be summoned were listed in the charge sheet.
Witness Nos.2 and 3 were the medical practitioners and
witness No.1 was the carrier. Learned APP would submit that

¶18

 945-Cri.Rev.Appln.234-22.odt

¶19

¶20

all the witnesses are relevant to prove the charges against the
accused. They have an independent evidence. However, the
reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Court are erroneous
that they are not material/important witnesses. The interest of
victim may affect, if such material witnesses are not allowed to
be examined. The impugned order is incorrect and illegal.
Hence, it may be set aside.

¶21

5.It appears that the charges framed against the accused
are serious. Section 230 of Cr.P.C. provides for fixing a date for
the prosecution evidence. On submitting the list of witnesses,
the learned Sessions Judge shall issue process for compelling
the attendance of any witness. The witnesses who were
requested to be called were listed in the list of the witnesses in
the charge sheet. It is inappropriate to assess the importance of
the witnesses before their examination. Hence, the Court is of
the opinion that the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions
Judge while rejecting the prayer to call the witnesses named
below Exh.84 appears to be incorrect and erroneous. The
State has a good case to warrant the impugned order.
Therefore, the application deserves to be allowed. Hence, the
following order :

¶22

 945-Cri.Rev.Appln.234-22.odt

¶23

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

(i) Criminal Revision Application is allowed.

¶26

(ii) The order refusing to issue witness summons to witness Nos.1, 2 and 3 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1 in Sessions Trial No.173 of 2014, dated 07.06.2022 is quashed and set aside.

¶27

(iii) Witness summons be issued to the witnesses as prayed in the said application.

¶28

 (S. G. MEHARE, J.)

¶29

vmk/-

The State of Maharashtra v. Jitendra Sitaram Wagh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Jitendra Sitaram Wagh and Others

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

Vishal Eknath Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Mobin Shaikh Sultan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dnyaneshwar @ Nana Madhukar Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vaishali W/O Rakesh Jaiswal and Anr. Vs Rakesh S/O Dhulchand Jaiswal

Rakesh S/O Dhulichand Jaiswal Vs Sau Vaishali W/Oi Rakesh Jaiswal and Anr.

Sanket Madhavsa Nampalli Vs the State of Maharashtra