Mangat Rai Shori And ANR v. Central Bureau Of Investigation And ORS
1 of 2 22.WP.3001.2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3001 OF 2019 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3286 OF 2021 Managat Rai Shori and another Petitioners versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another Respsondents Ms.Pranil Sonawane with Varsha Gangawane i/by S.S.Shinde, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr.Hiten S.Venegaonkar, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr.Arfan Sait, APP, for State.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 20th July 2022 PC :
1.
The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 25th April 2019 passed in CBI/Special Case No.95 of 2009 whereby the application filed below Exhibit-142 was partly allowed and certain documents wee taken on record as part of evidence and exhibited without compliance of certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act. It is submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Gorantyal and others (AIR-2020-SC-4908) has settled the issue and restored earlier legal position in the case of Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K.Basheer and others (2014)10-SCC-473. 2.
The petitioners had preferred application before the Trial MANISH SURESH THATTE Court challenging exhibiting of certain documents on the ground of MANISH SURESH THATTE Date: 2022.07.27 14:33:30 +0530 necessity of Section 65-B certificate. During pendency of this petition, petitioners have filed application before the Trial Court.
2 of 2 22.WP.3001.2019.doc The application was heard by the Trial Court on 15th March 2021 and vide order passed on the application on the same day, it was observed that petitioners had preferred Writ Petition No.3001 of 2019 before High Court and which fact was not brought to the notice of Court. On account of pendency of the petition before this Court, the application was rejected.
3.
It is pertinent to note that on account of change in law, the petitioners had moved the application before Trial Court. Without going into the merits of the application, the Trial Court can be directed to decide the application of petitioners by restoring the same. Learned counsel for petitioners states that present petition may be allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to pursue Application Exhibit-159. Learned counsel for respondents submits that since Trial Court has not adjudicated the application on merits, same can be directed to be restored and decide in accordance with law.
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition No.3001 of 2019 and Interim Application No.3286 of 2021 are allowed to be withdrawn and stand disposed off;
(ii) Order dated 25th April 2019 and 15th March 2021 passed by Trial Court are set aside. Application below Exhibit-159 is restored and Trial Court is directed to hear the said application below Exhibit159 and decide it in accordance with law. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST