Interim Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: MHMM180006072020 Summons Cases SS/5800167/2020
Raj Petro Specialities Pvt Ltd Vs. Shazzam
Lubriants Pvt Ltd
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE(FIRST CLASS),
58TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
ORDER BELOW APPLICATION EXH.60
This is an application moved on behalf of accused for
discarding evidence affidavit of CW-01, filed on behalf of complainant
on the ground that the person who has filed the complaint has not
stepped into witness box or the person who has substituted in place of
original complainant has not stepped into witness box.
2. Complainant objected the application vide reply Exh.62.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Admittedly, Mr. Gopal Laxminarayan Dyavanapeli, Manager
of complainant came to be substituted as authorized representative in
place of Mr. Mansing Patil who has filed the complaint. The
complainant, instead of examining the original complainant or the
substituted authorized representative, has filed evidence affidavit of
one Dipak Purani, who also seems to be representative of the
complainant.
5. Question crops up for determination whether law
contemplates any particular chronology of examining witness in
criminal trial? If it is considered, law nowhere contemplates particular
chronology of examination of witnesses in criminal trial just like as in
civil suit which expects the person appearing in the step of plaintiff to
adduce evidence first then to other witnesses. So far as criminal trial is
concerned, what is important is to prove allegations/averments and
further aspect of leading proof. The same can be either by the person
who made the averments himself or through any witness who is
-- 1 of 3 --
2 Summons Cases SS/5800167/2020
Order Below Exh.60
accustomed with the facts. It is settled law that anybody can prove or
anybody can come and give evidence to prove particular fact in
question. The criteria laid down by law is only that the facts must be
within his personal knowledge, or perceived by senses or on the basis
of record which is part of his daily business. Therefore, I do not found
any legal substance in application of accused to discard the evidence
affidavit at threshold without going for cross examination. Evidence
can not be shut up or closed without going to the test of cross
examination. Hence, I pass following order.
ORDER
1. Application is rejected.
2. Order dictated and pronounced in open court.
3. Order be uploaded on Court Web Portal.
Mumbai, (M. P. Saraf)
Dated : 03.10.2025. Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code-MH01362
-- 2 of 3 --
3 Summons Cases SS/5800167/2020
Order Below Exh.60
CERTIFICATE
I affirm that the contents of this P.D.F. file Order are same, word to word as per the
original Order.
Name of Stenographer : Mrs. Aditi Ravikiran Dalvi
Court : Judicial Magistrate(First Class), 58th Court, Bandra,
Mumbai.
Dictated in open court on : 03.10.2025.
Transcribed and Typed on : 03.10.2025.
Order printed and Signed on : 03.10.2025.
Order Uploaded on : 04.10.2025.
-- 3 of 3 --