Anil S/O Wasudeorao Chirkhare And Others v. State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. Kotwali, Nagpur

2111apl492.16 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 492 OF 2016 (Anil s/o Wasudeorao Chirkhare and others vs. State of Maharashtra) ______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

Shri M.S. Wakil, Advocate for applicants.

Shri C.A. Lokhande, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent.

-------- CORAM : P.N. DESHMUKH, J.

DATED : NOVEMBER 21, 2016 Heard Shri Wakil, learned Counsel for applicants, and Shri Lokhande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent.

This is the application for quashing order of learned 2nd Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur exhibiting call detail records as Exhs.79 to 87 in Sessions Trial No.297/2014, where applicants are tried for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Shri Wakil, learned Counsel for applicants, submits that in the evidence of Santosh Darekar, Investigating Officer, who is examined as P.W.8, learned trial Court has exhibited call detail records as Exhs. 79 to 87 and though defence has raised objection against exhibiting the same and learned trial Court has recorded the objection, learned trial Court has not passed any order to consider the same at the time of final hearing nor has considered the said objection at that time itself. The learned Counsel submits that necessary directions

2111apl492.16 2/2 may be issued to learned trial Court. It is also pointed out that learned trial Court in fact while recording similar objection raised by defence while recording evidence of P.W.1 has specifically mentioned that objection raised shall be considered at the time of decision in the case.

In the background of submissions advanced as above, perusal of evidence of P.W.8 reveals that call detail records are exhibited in his evidence as Exhs. 79 to 87 and the learned trial Court has recorded the objection. Similarly, from the evidence of P.W.1, the objection raised appears to have been recorded by the learned trial Court and same is directed to be considered at the time of decision of the case. Thus, it is found that objection recorded in the evidence of Investigating Officer is not stated to be considered at the time of final hearing. In that view of the matter, limited prayer made in the present application is liable to be allowed as per order below :

The learned trial Court to consider the objection raised by applicants and recorded in the evidence of P.W.8 Santosh Darekar, Investigating Officer, who has proved call detail records (Exhs. 79 to 87), at the time of final hearing. With this direction, application stands disposed of as allowed.

JUDGE khj