NO.1184 CRIMINAL OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.1184 CRIMINAL Ms. Surekha Gauridhar Jangam v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Petition and the Petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Bombay Police Act, 1951 ss. 110, 112, 117
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 311
- Bombay Police Act ss. 110, 112, 117
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. So complaint Shri. Salunkhe against already P.W.1 concerned, courts observed Petitioner always record certified complaint. I reasons courts coming conclusions exercising powers section 311 Code of 1973. Hence, there is no merit in the Petition and the Petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
Judgment
Heard Petitioner person. The Petitioner prosecuted offences punishable section 110, 112 section 117 Bombay Police Act,
1951. The Petitioner Application 1973 section 311 Code Criminal Procedure, recalling P.W.1 Rajendra Mahale. The recall sought ground oversight, Advocate Petitioner a suggestion witness Petitioner illegally arrested connection commission alleged non-cognizable offence. The second ground recall sought P.W.No.1 Mahale
Shri. filing therefore, Salunkhe a complaint defamation against P.W.No.1. The Application recall rejected learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate observed Petitioner always The record certified defamation Shri. Salunkhe against P.W.No.1. learned Magistrate observed opportunity granted Petitioner ...2... cross-examine witness witness cannot recalled filling lacuna. The Revision Application filed by the Applicant before the Sessions Court has been rejected.
The Petitioner appearing person placed reliance decision Apex Court reported V. A.I.R. 1999, Supreme Court 2292(Rajendra Prasad Narcotic Cell) submitted Apex Court re-examination prosecution witnesses cannot permitted filling lacuna prosecution evidence. However, Apex Court mistakes latches conducting Public Prosecutor cannot considered a lacuna prosecution under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 will have to be exercised. The Petitioner appearing person submitted panchnama 11th May, 1996 placed record prosecution itself Petitoner arrested panchnama nothing arrest panchnama. The Petitioner, therefore, submitted that a case for exercising power under section 311 of the said Code of 1973 was made out.
I considered submissions. The Petitioner prosecuted offence punishable
...3... section 110, 112 section 117 Bombay Police Act. The P.W.1 stated examination-in-chief Petitioner Police Chowki N.C. lodged signature. It difficult understand relevance alleged arrest Petitioner present prosecution. In event, according Petitioner, prosecution placed record alleged arrest panchnama. Since panchnama a document produced prosecution, Petitioner always panchnama hence, on the first ground it is not possible to recall P.W.1 Shri. Mahale.
Operative part
So complaint Shri. Salunkhe against already P.W.1 concerned, courts observed Petitioner always record certified complaint. I reasons courts coming conclusions exercising powers section 311 Code of 1973. Hence, there is no merit in the Petition and the Petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition and the Petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bombay Police Act, 1951 — ss. 110, 112, 117; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 311; Bombay Police Act — ss. 110, 112, 117.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 21 Jul 2005. The bench was A S OKA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.