Skip to content


Gangadhar Vs. The State of Maharashtra - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtMumbai Aurangabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Writ Petition No. 1465 of 2016
Judge
AppellantGangadhar
RespondentThe State of Maharashtra
Excerpt:
.....aurangabad, by which the applications filed by the petitioner/accused seeking adjournment to cross examine the prosecution witnesses are rejected and as a consequence, the petitioner/accused has lost an opportunity of cross examining the prosecution witnesses. 3. though, i find that the impugned order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction, considering the proposition laid down in the judgment given in the case of p.sanjeeva rao vs. state of andhra pradesh reported in (2012) 7 supreme court cases 56, and the facts of the present case, the following order is passed to sub-serve the ends of justice. (i) learned judicial magistrate first class, [court no. 3], kannad, district aurangabad shall give an opportunity to the petitioner/accused to cross examine the prosecution.....
Judgment:

Oral Judgment:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard Mr. Vijay Sharma, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. K.N.Lokhande, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. The petitioner takes exception to the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, [Court No. 3], Kannad, District Aurangabad, by which the applications filed by the petitioner/accused seeking adjournment to cross examine the prosecution witnesses are rejected and as a consequence, the petitioner/accused has lost an opportunity of cross examining the prosecution witnesses.

3. Though, I find that the impugned order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction, considering the proposition laid down in the judgment given in the case of P.Sanjeeva Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2012) 7 Supreme Court Cases 56, and the facts of the present case, the following order is passed to sub-serve the ends of justice.

(i) Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, [Court No. 3], Kannad, District Aurangabad shall give an opportunity to the petitioner/accused to cross examine the prosecution witnesses.

(ii) Learned Advocate for the petitioner/accused undertakes on behalf of the petitioner/accused that the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses will be completed within two months. It is further assured on behalf of the petitioner/accused that the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses will be conducted on the date fixed by the learned Magistrate and the petitioner/accused will not seek adjournment on any ground.

(iii) If the petitioner/accused fails to cross examine the prosecution witnesses on the day on which they are present, petitioner/accused will not be entitled to cross examine the prosecution witnesses and the learned Magistrate shall proceed further in the matter.

(iv) The Magistrate shall take necessary steps in the matter to recall the witnesses/secure their presence.

(v) Petitioner/accused shall pay costs of ` 10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand] to the respondent State within one week from today and produce the receipt on the record before the learned Magistrate. If the receipt showing payment of cost is not produced on the record before the learned Magistrate within one week, this order shall stand recalled and the learned Magistrate may proceed with the matter according to law.

If the amount of costs is not accepted on behalf of the respondent State for some reason, the petitioner/accused shall deposit the amount of costs before the learned Magistrate within one week.

[vi] Rule is made absolute in the above terms.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //