Tukaram S/O Venkatrao Yatamwad v. Sambhaji S/O Bapurao Karwande

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 669 OF 2015 Tukaram s/o. Venkatrao Yatamwad ....Petitioner.

Versus

Sambhaji s/o. Bapurao Karwande ....Respondent.

Mr. G.G. Kadam, Advocate for petitioner.

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.

DATED : 29th June, 2015.

ORDER :

1.

Today the amendment which was allowed in the past is taken on record. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Seen the order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Basmath.

2.

It appears that during examination in chief of the complainant, the envelop containing notice issued by the complainant to accused was opened and the notice which was in the envelop was tallied with the office copy of notice which was produced by the complainant on the reord. The office copy of the notice is given Exh. 65. But, inadvertently, the Court did not give exhibit to the notice which was present in the envelop. In view of this circumstance, the complainant filed application for

permission to re-examine the complainant to prove the said notice. This request was opposed by the accused, but the reexamination was allowed. It appears that subsequently, when the learned counsel for the accused wanted to further cross examine the complainant in respect of re-examination, this request was turned down.

3.

The aforesaid circumstances show that it was a fault of the Court and not the fault of the complainant. When the document is duly proved in the examination in chief, then and there only document needs to be exhibited. The re-examination of the witness to prove the document which was duly proved was formality and actually was not necessary. The aforesaid circumstances show that not only the office copy was proved, but it was compared with the notice sent in the envelop to the accused and it was compared during examination in chief. In view of these circumstances, the Trial Court ought to have given exhibit to the notice which was present in the envelop in the examination in chief. There was misconception and out of that, the complainant was called for re-examination. Re-examination of the complainant was not at all necessary as the document could have been exhibited directly. In view of these circumstances, there was no need to take further cross

examination of the complainant.

4.

In the result, the petition stands dismissed. [ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ] ssc/