All Cases

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1835 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders None present for the petitioner Mr.S.N.Gawade A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 26th NOVEMBER 2009 P.C. : None present for the petitioner when called. Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1835 of 2009 Kiran Dhondopant Thakur ....Petitioner v/s. State of Maharashtra & anr. ....Respondents Mr. D.V. Sutar for the petitioner. Ms. A.T. Jhaveri-APP for the State. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 18th July, 2011 PC: Issue notice for final disposal, returnable on or before 16th August, 2011. Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b). (B.R. GAVAI, J)

Order - Status 16: rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1835 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or orders or directions & Judge's orders. Registrar's orders. None present. ..... ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 12, 2011. P.C.: None for the petitioners. Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. (A.S.OKA, J.)

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1835 OF 2009 Kiran D. Thakur and anr. ...Petitioners v/s The State of Maharashtra and anr. ...Respondents None for Petitioners. Mrs S.V. Gajare Dhumal, APP for Respondent State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL J. DATED : 3RD DECEMBER 2013. P.C. : The learned counsel for petitioners is again called, absent. S.O. to 19th December 2013. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL J.)

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1835 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 358 OF 2013 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1835 OF 2009 Kiran Dhondopant Thakur and another .....Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & another ....Respondents Mr. D. V. Sutar Advocate for Petitioner Mr. Y. M. Nakhwa APP for the State. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATED : JANUARY 16, 2014 PC : Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused had filed a petition seeking quashing of the proceedings. This Court (Coram : A. S. Oka, J.) by an order dated 13/07/2009, has issued Rule and granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause 'b'. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioners are similarly situated, hence : Rule. Interim relief in terms of prayer clause 'b'. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 25: Ghuge IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1835 OF 2009 Kiran Dhondopant Thakur and Anr … Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra and Anr … Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.358 OF 2013 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1835 OF 2009 Kiran Dhondopant Thakur and Anr … Applicants V/s. State of Maharashtra and Anr … Respondents Ms. Kavita Vijapure i/b D.V. Sutar for the petitioners. Smt. M.R. Tidke, APP for the State. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : APRIL 26, 2023 P.C.: Learned advocate for the petitioners has filed praecipe for withdrawal of the petition. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly. (AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1771 OF 2010 Amit Anant Thite and Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Venkatesh A.Shastry for Petitioners Mrs. M.R. Tidake -APP for State. Mr.U.P. Warunjikar for Respondent No.2 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 18TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners seeks leave to withdraw this writ petition. Writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn. If an application for exemption is filed by the petitioners in the Trial Court, the same may be considered favourably and the presence may not be insisted unless it is absolutely necessary. petition is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.966 OF 2013 MR.SHABBU RAUF KHAN )...APPLICANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. )...RESPONDENTS Mr.Satyavrat Joshi i/b. Mr.Subhash Hulyalkar Advocate for Applicant. Mrs.S.V.Sonawane APP for the State. CORAM: ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATE : rd JULY, 2013. 3 P.C. : 1 Heard. 2 Since the period of three moths stipulated by the order dated 12.4.2013 is not over, the application is premature, so to say. 3 However, in the circumstances explained by the learned counsel for the applicant, instead of rejecting the application on that ground, it would be proper to consider it after 12.7.2013. 4 Stand over to 16.7.2013. (ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.) avk 1/1

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.966 OF 2013 SHABBU RAUF KHAN )...APPLICANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. )...RESPONDENTS Mr.Satyavrat Joshi i/b. Mr.Subhash Hulyalkar Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs.G.P.Mulekar APP for the State. CORAM: ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATE : 16th JULY, 2013. P.C. : 1 Heard Mr.Satyavrat Joshi, the learned counsel for the applicant, and Mrs.G.P.Mulekar, the learned APP for the State. 2 The previous application filed by the applicant was withdrawn by him, after submitting that the applicant be granted liberty to apply afresh for bail, should the trial not commence within a reasonable time. Liberty was granted by the court to the applicant to apply afresh for bail, in the event of the trial not commencing within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the said order by the court. The order was passed on 12.4.2013. 3 I am informed that, though the said period is over, the trial has not yet commenced. The learned counsel for the applicant has produced a copy of the roznama of the trial court, which indicates that the trial has not yet commenced, and that, even a Charge has not yet been framed. 4 I have, therefore, considered the facts of the case, afresh. It is clear that though the participation of the applicant in the alleged incident, is indicated by the material in the chargesheet, the role attributed to the applicant is not as grave, as has been attributed to, two other accused. The applicant is alleged to have given a blow to the deceased by a pana on the wrist of the deceased. 5 The applicant is of 19 years. There are no antecedents. The applicant is in custody for a period of more than nine months. 6 Under these circumstances, I am inclined to grant one opportunity to the applicant of availing of liberty, subject to certain conditions. 7 The application is allowed. 8 The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/, with one surety in the like amount, or two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/ each, on the following conditions : i) The applicant shall not contact, meet or approach any of the prosecution witnesses, in any manner, whatsoever. ii) The applicant shall report to the Pimpri Police Station every Sunday, between 5.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m., till the disposal of the case against him. (ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1211 OF 2015 A/W CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1539/2015 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2992/2020 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2990/2020 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2991/2020 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.666/2020 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.667/2020 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2988/2020 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2989/2020 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2984/2020 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1211/2015 Dilip Babubhai Shah & Ors. … Petitioners. Vs. Babubhai Sardarmal Shah & Ors. … Respondents. Mr. Nitin V. Gangal, Advocate for respondent nos.4, 7, 10,11 and 12. Ms K.R. Daviervala & Mr. Y.P. Jijina i/b Mulla & Mulla & AB &C for applicants/appellants. CORAM : PRITHVIRAJ K.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 30th JUNE, 2022. CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Digitally signed by CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Date: 2022.07.02 17:18:57 +0530 P.C.: This Court has suggested the parties to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement of the dispute, in view of the fact that most of the appellants and respondents are senior citizens. Learned Counsel for the parties seek a week's time to suggest the name of a 'Mediator'. List the appeal for further directions, on 08.07.2022. (PRITHVIRAJ K.CHAVAN, J.)

Order - Status 8: Shailaja IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1211 OF 2015 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2984 OF 2020 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2988 OF 2020 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.667 OF 2020 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2991 OF 2020 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2990 OF 2020 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2992 OF 2020 A/W CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1539 OF 2015 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2989 OF 2020 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.666 OF 2020 Dilip Babubhai Shah and others. ] Appellants Vs. Babubhat Sardamal Shah and others.] Respondents Ms. K.R. Daviervala i/b M/s. Mulla & Mulla and Craigie Blunt and Caroe, for Appellants/Applicants. ..... ..... Mr. Nitin V. Gangal, for Respondents No.4,7,10,11 and 12. CORAM : PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. DATED : 15th JULY, 2022. P.C. Parties are contemplating amicable settlement through the process of mediation. Parties are at liberty to take necessary steps in that regard and inform the Court accordingly. Stand over to 22nd July, 2022. [PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.]

Order - Status 10: S.S.KilajeIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1211 OF 2015 Dilip Babubhai Shah and Ors. .. Appellants Versus Babubhai Sardarmal Shah & Ors. .. Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2984 OF 2020 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1211 OF 2015 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2988 OF 2020 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1211 OF 2015 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 667 OF 2020 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1211 OF 2015 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2990 OF 2020 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1211 OF 2015 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2991 OF 2020 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1211 OF 2015 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2992 OF 2020 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1211 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1539 OF 2015 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1211 OF 2015 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2989 OF 2020 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1211 OF 2015 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 666 OF 2020 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1211 OF 2015 Ms. K.R.Daviervala i/by M/s. Mulla & Mulla & Craige Blunt and Caroe for the Appellants .................... Ms. Prerna Shukla i/by Nitin V. Gangal for Respondent Nos. 4,7,10,11,12 ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : JULY 22, 2022 P.C. : Ms. Daviervala, learned counsel for appellants submits that appellants have taken out 8 interim applications viz. IA/2984/2020, IA/2988/2020, IA/667/2020, IA/2990/2020, IA/2991/2020, IA/2992/2020, IA/2989/2020 & IA/666/2020, for bringing the legal heirs of deceased respondents on record as some of the respondents have expired. INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 666 OF 2020:- By this application, applicants seek to substitute legal heirs of deceased respondent No.17 who has expired on 22.03.2019. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 211 days to file the application and bring the legal heirs on record stands condoned. Leave to amend is granted. Re-verification is dispensed with. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order as per the schedule appended to the Interim Application. Once amendment is carried out, applicants are directed to serve the newly impleaded respondents and file appropriate affidavit of service and inform the newly added respondents about the hearing scheduled before the Mediator. Interim Application No. 666 of 2020 stands disposed of. INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 667 OF 2020:- By this application, applicants seek to substitute legal heirs of the deceased respondent No.16 who has expired on 26th/27th January, 2019. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 264 days to file the application and bring the legal heirs on record stands condoned. Leave to amend is granted. Re-verification is dispensed with. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order as per the schedule appended to the Interim Application. Once amendment is carried out, applicants are directed to serve the newly impleaded respondents and file appropriate affidavit of service and inform the newly added respondents about the hearing scheduled before the Mediator. Interim Application No. 667 of 2020 stands disposed of. INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2984 OF 2020:- By this application, applicants seek to substitute legal heirs of deceased respondent No.5 who has expired on 08.06.2013. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 27 days to file the application and bring the legal heirs on record stands condoned. Leave to amend is granted. Re-verification is dispensed with. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order as per the schedule appended to the Interim Application. Once amendment is carried out, applicants are directed to serve the newly impleaded respondents and file appropriate affidavit of service and inform the newly added respondents about the hearing scheduled before the Mediator. Interim Application No. 2984 of 2020 stands disposed of. INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2988 OF 2020:- By this application, applicants seek to substitute legal heirs of deceased respondent No.1 who has expired on 06.02.2014. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 27 days to file the application and bring the legal heirs on record stands condoned. Leave to amend is granted. Re-verification is dispensed with. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order as per the schedule appended to the Interim Application. Once amendment is carried out, applicants are directed to serve the newly impleaded respondents and file appropriate affidavit of service and inform the newly added respondents about the hearing scheduled before the Mediator. Interim Application No. 2988 of 2020 stands disposed of. INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2989 OF 2020:- By this application, applicants seek to substitute legal heirs of deceased respondent No.3 who has expired on 03.12.2016. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 1090 days to file the application and bring the legal heirs on record stands condoned. Leave to amend is granted. Re-verification is dispensed with. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order as per the schedule appended to the Interim Application. Once amendment is carried out, applicants are directed to serve the newly impleaded respondents and file appropriate affidavit of service and inform the newly added respondents about the hearing scheduled before the Mediator. Interim Application No. 2989 of 2020 stands disposed of. INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2990 OF 2020:- By this application, applicants seek to substitute legal heirs of deceased respondent No.2 who has expired on 06.03.2019. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 267 days 36.ao.1211.15+.doc to file the application and bring the legal heirs on record stands condoned. Leave to amend is granted. Re-verification is dispensed with. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order as per the schedule appended to the Interim Application. Once amendment is carried out, applicants are directed to serve the newly impleaded respondents and file appropriate affidavit of service and inform the newly added respondents about the hearing scheduled before the Mediator. Interim Application No. 2990 of 2020 stands disposed of. INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2991 OF 2020:- By this application, applicants seek to substitute legal heirs of deceased respondent No.28 who has expired on 06.10.2015. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 27 days to file the application and bring the legal heirs on record stands condoned. Leave to amend is granted. Re-verification is dispensed with. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order as per the schedule appended to the Interim Application. Once amendment is carried out, applicants are directed to serve the newly impleaded respondents and file appropriate affidavit of service and inform the newly added respondents about the hearing scheduled before the Mediator. Interim Application No. 2991 of 2020 stands disposed of. 36.ao.1211.15+.doc INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2992 OF 2020:- By this application, applicants seek to substitute legal heirs of deceased respondent No.33 who has expired on 05.06.2013. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 27 days to file the application and bring the legal heirs on record stands condoned. Leave to amend is granted. Re-verification is dispensed with. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order as per the schedule appended to the Interim Application. Once amendment is carried out, applicants are directed to serve the newly impleaded respondents and file appropriate affidavit of service and inform the newly added respondents about the hearing scheduled before the Mediator. Interim Application No. 2992 of 2020 stands disposed of. Ms. Daviervala on instructions submits that appellants have already compromised and settled the matter/lis with respondent Nos. 42 to 85 and in that view of the matter seeks leave of this Court to delete the names of respondent Nos. 42 to 85. Affidavit to that effect shall be filed by the appellants within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order. Leave to delete respondent Nos. 42 to 85 as prayed for is granted. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order. Re-verification stands dispensed with. Both learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that as suggested by this Court on the previous occasion, they have taken instructions from their clients and are ready to go before the Court appointed Mediator for reconciliation / settlement. Mr. Vishal Kanade, Advocate practicing in this Court and having his office at 103, Gundecha Chambers, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai (Mobile No. 9819668711) is appointed as Mediator to mediate on all issues and disputes between the parties. Appellants shall pay 50% of the fee whereas respondent Nos. 4,7,10,11,12, who are the principle contesting respondents shall bear the remaining 50% fees of the Mediator. The Mediator is requested to submit his report within a period of 8 weeks from today. Appeal from Order No. 1211 of 2015, stood over to 20th September, 2022. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] SONALI SATISH KILAJE Digitally signed by SONALI SATISH KILAJE Date: 2022.07.28 18:26:46 +0530

Order - Status 5: SALUNKE J V Digitally signed by SALUNKE J V Date: 2023.01.13 17:42:56 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 4 OF 2020 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17167 OF 2022 Sunil Tukaram Jagtap } Petitioner Versus Sanjay Krishnarao Taksande } and Ors. } Respondents Ms. Radhali Kadam with Mr. S. S. Kulkarni for the petitioner. Mr. A. R. Gole for respondent no. 1. Mr. Hrishikesh Chavan for respondent no. 2. Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for State. Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kiran Gandhi i/b. Little and Co. for respondent no. 4. Mr. Aditya A. Joshi i/b. Mr. Abhijeet A. Joshi for respondents 5 and 6 (MSETCL). CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, Act.CJ.& SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE: JANUARY 13, 2023 P.C.: 1. The learned advocate for respondent no. 2 seeks time to file affidavit in reply to the interim application. The reply shall be filed within one week from today. 2. Place the matter on 1st February 2023. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) 1

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.4 OF 2020 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.17167 OF 2022 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.4 OF 2020 Sunil Tukaram Jagtap ....Petitioner/Applicant V/S Sanjay Krishnarao Taksande & Ors. ....Respondents … Mr. Shriram S. Kulkarni for the Petitioner/Applicant. Mr. G.S. Godbole a/w Mr. A.R. Gole for Respondent No.1. Mr. Hrishikesh Chavan for Respondent No.2-MSEB. Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate and Mr. Kiran Gavellkar i/b M/s. Little & Co. for Respondent No.4-MSEDCL. Mr. P.P. Kakade, GP a/w Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 7-State. … Mr. Abhijit Joshi for Respondent Nos.5 and 6-MSETCL. CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 1st FEBRUARY 2023. P.C.: 1 We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner/Applicant and the learned Advocates for the respective Respondents. 2 The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has filed Interim Application for amendment in view of the subsequent development. He submits that the Petitioner had challenged the appointment of Respondent No.1 initially with Respondent No.5. The tenure of Respondent No.1 with Respondent No.5 is over. Fresh selection process was conducted by Respondent No.4 in which Respondent No.1 is selected as Director (Operations). The same is also against the rules. The rules require that a person with impeccable past history can be considered. The Respondent No.1 does not fit into it. 3 The learned Advocate for the Respondent submits that the fresh appointment is by another employer, the cause of action of the Writ Petition now does not subsist. In view of that in a Writ Petition, for which the cause of action does subsist, amendment may not be allowed. 4 It is not disputed by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that when the PIL was filed Petitioner was seeking writ of quo warranto qua appointment of Respondent No.1 by Respondent No.5. The tenure of Respondent No.1 with Respondent No.5 is over. Respondent No.4 conducted fresh selection process and has selected Respondent No.1 as Director (Operations). The same would be a completely fresh cause of action as the employer and the designation has changed. 5 In light of above, as the relief in the original Writ Petition itself has become infructuous, it would be improper to consider the present 2/3 Application for amendment. It is for the Petitioner to take appropriate steps by filing proceedings as may be maintainable. 6 In light of above, the PIL and Interim Application stands disposed of. The Petitioner may take proceedings as may be permissible under law. In that event all contentions of the Petitioner as well as respective Respondents are kept open. No costs. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Date: 2023.02.04 10:27:34 +0530

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.217 OF 2006 Santosh Madhukar Chavan. ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Shashikant Samant for the Petitioner. Mr.P.S. Hingorani, APP. for the State. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE,J. DATED : 31/1/2006. P.C. Heard both sides. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. This petition impugns an order dated 7.1.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg below Exh.131 and 148 in Sessions Case No.3/4/5 of 2005. The crux of the matter is that during the trial certain witnesses who had made certain statements of facts in their police statements were examined. When they entered into the witness box, in their examination in chief they did not depose about the said facts mentioned in the police statements. However, in their cross examination a version which was contrary to what they had stated in police statement relating to those facts was elicited by the defence. On eliciting such a contradictory version in their substantive evidence, a contradiction with their earlier police statement was sought to be brought on record. This has been disallowed by the trial court on the ground that a statement of fact which find place in the police statement recorded in the course of the investigation cannot be used to contradict the different version which had been elicited during the cross examination of the witness in the court. Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the rules relating to use of police statements in evidence. In short, the said section provides that when any witness is called by the prosecution in an inquiry or trial and the statement of such witness has been reduced to writing in the police investigation, then any part of the statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the court by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down the rules relating to cross examination as to previous statements made by a witness in writing. It provides that a witness may be cross examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into :2: writing, and relevant to matters in question without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. Neither Section 162 nor Section 145 lay down any embargo to the effect that such a contradiction can only be brought on record in the examination in chief. It is well settled that the evidence of a witness consists of examination in chief, his cross examination as well as re-examination if any. In the absence of any embargo, it would be open to the defence to prove a contradiction, if any exists, between the police statement and the evidence which has been brought on record during the cross examination of the witness. The Trial Court in the present case appears to be of the view that the defence cannot be allowed to create a contradiction and then prove the same. There is no question of creation of contradiction. If within the parameters which define the scope of the cross examination, any statement is brought on record by the defence in the cross examination, then said statement is a part of the evidence and if their exists a previous statement of the witness which is contradictory then in my view, the contradiction can be put to the witness and brought on record. In the circumstances, in my view this is a case where rule will have to be made absolute. It has been observed in the impugned order that certain questions were improperly asked in the sense that they pertained to nature of the contents of the statement made to the police. It is made clear that the reasoning given hereinabove would not permit the defence to ask the witness directly about the contents of the statement said to have been made to the police officer. I am informed that the evidence of some of the witnesses in respect of whose evidence questions were disallowed, has been already completed. I am further informed that this application was moved principally because the defence may face similar difficulty in the recording of evidence yet to come. In view of the closing of the evidence of the said witnesses, it will be open to the defence to apply for recall of those witnessses and if any such application is made, the same may be dispose off on merits. Rule is made absolute accordingly and the the petition is disposed off. (R. S. MOHITE, J.)