Allowed

Pintu @ Devidas Waman Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC10 Nov 2023WP/1225/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged refusal to recall prosecution witnesses for cross-examination. Court allowed petition mandating recall and payment of costs to ensure cross-examination within two dates, citing importance of cross-examination despite delay.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Trial Court to recall PW Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 after petitioner pays Rs. 1,000/- each; cross-examination within two dates without adjournments.

Pintu @ Devidas Waman Rathod Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

criwp1225.23.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1225 OF 2023

¶5

Pintu @ Devidas s/o Waman Rathod

¶6

Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & another

¶9

Respondents

¶10

Mr. R. R. Shaikh, Advocate holding for Mr. D. R. Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, APP for the State.

¶11

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 10^th NOVEMBER, 2023.

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

This petition takes exception to the order dated 9^th May, 2023, refusing application Exhibit 82 for recalling of witnesses PW No. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in Special Case No. 1/2016.

¶14

At the outset, learned counsel for petitioner states that witness PW 8 Dr. Birajdar is already cross-examined by advocate for accused and hence there is no need to recall that witness. As far as other witnesses are concerned, it is submitted that for want of crossexamination of the witnesses, due to absence of learned counsel, prejudice and irreparable loss is caused to the accused. Me makes a statement that if the petition is allowed, the accused/petitioner shall

¶15

¶16

criwp1225.23.odt

¶17

pay cost of Rs. 1,000/- each to the witnesses for their appearance before the Trial Court and it would be over and above the bhatta available to them.

¶18

Learned APP opposed the application by pointing out conduct of the petitioner of not challenging the impugned order in time. It is also submitted that the proceeding before the Trial Court is of the year 2016 and no haste is seen in even examining the witnesses by the Trial Court.

¶19

This Court fnds substance in the contention of learned APP that this is an attempt to delay the proceeding before the Trial Court. However, at the same time, it cannot be ignored that four witnesses examined by the prosecution are not cross-examined. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P. Sanjeeva Rao vs. State of A.P., 2012(4) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 442 , has underlined importance of crossexamination of any witness in a criminal proceeding. The trial will get vitiated if opportunity of cross-examination is not given and hence, even with the observations that petitioner is adopting dilatory tactics, the petition is allowed.

¶20

criwp1225.23.odt

¶21

The impugned order is set aside. Trial Court to recall PW No. 4, 5, 6 and 7 subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- each by petitioner, in addition to bhatta payable to them. Payment of cost will be pre-condition for cross examination of these witnesses. Trial Court to ensure that these four witnesses are cross-examined in two dates. No adjournment shall be granted on whatsoever reason if sought by the accused. It is open for the Trial Court to discharge the witness if they are not cross-examined.

¶22

dyb

Pintu @ Devidas Waman Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu @ Devidas Waman Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhushan Vitthal Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Vachista Shriram Kute and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ram Yashwant Gharjale and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sujit Madhukar Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., through Authorized Officer Durgesh Amardeep Nirwan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramdas Bhausaheb Kanade and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another