In this criminal writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order dismissing his application for direction to supply witness statements. The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad found the lower court order legal and noted that prosecution readiness had been recorded, dismissing the petition.
The criminal writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
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.
1
50.Cri.WP-94-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 94 OF 2023
RAHUL BHIKULAL KASAT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Ghanekar Nilesh S.
APP for Respondent/State : Mr. Y. G. Gujarati
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
DATE : 19th APRIL 2023.
Per Court :
Heard both sides.
1.A challenge is to an order dated 15.12.2022, whereby the
application of the petitioner/accused came to be decided. By way of
application, Exhibit-84, the petitioner had sought direction to the
prosecution to produce statements of one Satish Karwa and Seema
Suresh Karwa recorded by Dy. S.P. Pal and of one Khandu s/o Baburao
Banduke and Dadasaheb s/o Tulsidas Lipne recorded by the
Investigating Officer.
2
50.Cri.WP-94-2023.doc
2.The prosecution filed say stating that statements of Satish Karwa
and Seema Karwa are not recorded by the Investigating Officer. The
prosecution further shows readiness to supply copies of statements of
Khandu Banduke and Dadasaheb Lipne, those were recorded by the I.O.
The learned Court below therefore recorded that the prosecution is
ready to supply the copies of the statements of Khandu Banduke and
Dadasaheb Lipne directed the same to be supplied to the accused.
Since it is already recorded that statements of two persons are not
recorded, no specific order is passed.
3.The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that in the
statements of the complainant himself it has come that statements of
Satish Karwa and Seema Karwa were recorded by the Dy. S.P. Pal and
therefore such statements are required to be given to them. He further
submits that even the accused himself was present at the time, when
search of deceased was carried and therefore he has personal
knowledge that the statements of these witnesses were recorded.
4. The learned APP submits that the prosecution is specifically saying
3 50.Cri.WP-94-2023.doc
that no such statements were recorded of those two persons. There is
no question of giving direction to supply such statements to the
accused. So far as the statements which are recorded, he submits that
already prosecution had shown readiness to supply the same to the
accused.
5.This Court finds that the order passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge does not suffer from any illegality. The Court has rightly
recorded that the statements which are recorded to be supplied to the
accused and secondly in respect of alleged statements which are not
recorded, no order is passed. This Court finds that no interference is
called for and the petition deserves to be dismissed. Thus the petition
stands dismissed accordingly.
Najee b .
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in dismissing the accused's application for direction to supply witness statements.
RAHUL BHIKULAL KASAT
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
KISHORE C. SANT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court