Dismissed

Ashok Vishwanath Kamble v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Jul 2024REVN/355/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision application, the Bombay High Court rejected the applicant's plea to recall prosecution witnesses PW-1 and PW-7. The court held the impugned order correct, finding no prejudice warranting recall since witnesses were already cross-examined, and the power under Section 311 CrPC cannot be used routinely or to recommence cross-examination.

What did the court decide?

no order as to costs

Ashok Vishwanath Kamble vs State of Maharashtra — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

21-REVN-355-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 355 OF 2024

¶4

Ashok Vishwanath Kamble … Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶5

Ms. Apeksha Vora, for the Applicant.

¶6

P.C.:

¶7

Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant. The

¶8

Application questions the order dated 09.05.2024, passed by the Special Judge on Application below Exhibit-54 seeking recall of the prosecution witness Nos. 1 and 7 for cross examination. The learned Court has rejected the Application by the impugned order on the ground that change of counsel, which has occurred on 16.10.2023 cannot be a ground for the purpose of recall.

¶9

TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO

¶10

Digitally signed by TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Date: 2024.07.16 14:46:58 +0530

¶11

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that prejudice is being caused to the Applicant on account of relevant questions not being put to the witnesses PW-1 and PW-7, on account of which recall

1 of 3

Shubham Talle

21-REVN-355-2024.doc

is necessary.

She further relies upon Judgment in Satbir Singh Versus State of Haryana and Others¹ decided on 29.08.2023 , in which the application for recall has been allowed.

¶17

In the instant case it is not in dispute that PW-1 has been examined on 26.09.2023 (page 26) and was cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused, thereafter PW-7 has been examined 16.01.2024 (page 75) and also has been examined by the learned Counsel for the Accused/Applicant.

¶18

The power of the Court to recall a witness, under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC.) is a power which has to be exercised cautiously and cannot be used as a matter of routine, to set back the trial, mearly for the sake of asking. In the instant case, there is no dispute that PW-1 and PW-7 have been cross examined by the learned Counsel for the Applicant/Accused. Mearly because the counsel was appointed counsel from the legal aid, does not change the situation. The Application under Section 311 of Cr.PC., came to be filed at the stage when the argument from the learned counsel for the applicant/accused were partly heard. The change of counsel is on

¶19

1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1086

2 of 3

Shubham Talle

21-REVN-355-2024.doc

16.10.2023. There is nothing on record to indicate as to why the application was not filed earlier in point of time immediately when witness nos. 8 and 9 were examined. That apart, the power of recall, cannot be used to again recommence cross examination, but has to be only used upon demonstrating, as to why the recall and reexamination is necessary. In my considered opinion, no case is made out in this regard. Though Satbir Singh (supra) has been relied upon para 12 therein indicates, that the view taken therein was under the peculiar facts of that case and does not lay down a general proposition.

¶24

In that view of that matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The Revision Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶25

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶26

3 of 3

¶27

Shubham Talle

Ashok Vishwanath Kamble v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Vishwanath Kamble v. 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

Vatsalabai Dandg, Shikshan Krushi Krida, Gramin Vikas Va Bahu. Sanstha Thr. Secy., Umesh G. Dandge vs the State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Higher and Technical Education Dept., Mumbai and Others

Shantaram Dattaji Ghag Since Dec Thr Heirs vs District Deputy Registrar Co. Op Soc and Ors.

Shabana Naushad Alias Navshad Mulani vs the State of Maharashtra Addl. Divisional Commissioner Pune Division and Ors.

Ku. Prabhavati Ramaji Surjuse vs the Education Officer (Pri.), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and Others

Dattatray Sarjerao Shinde vs Additional Commissioner, Pune. and Ors.

Bajirao Ganpat Kalbhor and Anr. vs Namdeo Rajaram Kadam and Ors.