2013 ALL MR (Cri) 2700, Gangareddy Rajanna Deotale Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

2013 ALL MR (Cri) 2700
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.

Gangareddy Rajanna Deotale Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. A.S. DHORE
Respondent Counsel: Mrs. RASHI DESHPANDE

Criminal P.C. (1973), S.311 - Application for recalling of certain witnesses - Report filed by police u/s.173 - Submissions made on behalf of complainant not in accordance with procedure laid down in Cr.P.C - Applicant had no 'locus standi' to move application - Rejection of application by Trial Court would be proper - Applicant advised to request Assistant P.P. appearing in Trial Court to move for recall of witnesses. (Paras 3, 4)

JUDGMENT :- Admitted. Heard finally by consent. Heard learned counsel Mr.A.S.Dhore, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Rashi Deshpande, learned Addl. P.P. for non-applicant no.1-State. No notices are being issued to respondent nos. 2 and 3 as no adverse order is being passed against them.

2. The applicant is the first informant in Criminal Case No. 326/2005 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pandharkawada. It is the report filed by the police u/s 173 of Cr.P.C. after investigation on the report made by the applicant.

3. The applicant had made an Application for recall of certain witnesses and for their further examination before the trial Court. The trial Court rejected the Application on the ground that the applicant had no locus standi to move the Application for recall of witnesses. The Revision filed in the Sessions Court has been rejected.

4. In my view, the learned trial Court was right in rejecting the prayer of the applicant. I am told that one of the Advocates from Pandharkawada is representing the complainant in the said criminal case and he is assisting the prosecution. In the circumstances, it was advisable that the applicant should have requested the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor appearing in the trial Court to move the trial Court for recall of witnesses. The submissions made on behalf of the complainant was not in accordance with the procedure laid down in Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate could not have granted such an Application.

5. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the Application. It needs to be dismissed. However, it is made clear that the applicant is not prevented from requesting the learned Addl. P..P. to apply for recall certain important witnesses. The learned Addl.P.P. may exercise his discretion on the basis of the available evidence. The present Application is, therefore, dismissed.