Mr. R. M. Deshmukh, Advocate for the v. M. Jaware, APP for
Legal Reasoning
3-*Cri-WP-1801-2024-Judgment.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD3 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1801 OF 2024Amar S/o Wamanrao DeshmukhAge: 35 years, Occu. Business,R/o. Civil Line, Washim,Taluka and District Washim… PETITIONER (Ori. Complainant)VERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,2.Dr. Prasanna S/o Sudhakar Deshmukh,Age : 48 years, Occu: Medical Practitioner,R/o Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar(Aurangabad), At present Medicover Hospital,Near Chistiya Police Chowki,N-6, Cidco,Chhatrapati Sambhaj inagar,Taluka & Dist.Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.3.Madhav S/o Trimbak Chavan,Age- 41 years, Occu: Service,R/o Sai Hospital, Chh. SaurbhajinagarAt present C/o Dr. Prasanna SudhakarDeshmukh, Medicover Hospital,Near Chistþ Police Chowki,N-6, Cidco,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,Taluka & Dist.Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.4.Sunita Bansi Bhalerao,Age 35 years, Occu: Service as Nurse,R/o C/o Dr. Prasanna SudhakarDeshmukh, Medicover Hospital, Near Chistiya Police Chowki,N -6, Cidco,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,Taluka & Dist.Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.…RESPONDENTS (Resp.Nos. 2 to 4 are Orig. accused) 1 of 20 (( 2 ))3-*Cri-WP-1801-2024-Judgment.…Mr. R. M. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. V. M. Jaware, APP for Respondent No.1Mr. R. R. Deshmukh and Mr. R. B. Deshmukh, Advocates forRespondent Nos. 2 to 4 .…CORAM: Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.DATE:25.11.2024ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1.Leave granted to invoke Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure with Article 227 of the Constitution of India forchallenging the impugned order dated 21.06.2024, passed by thelearned Sessions Judge, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar in CriminalRevision No. 88 of 2024, arising out of order dated 17.02.2024passed below Exh.149 in Summary Criminal Case No. 543 of 2009 bythe learned J.M.F.C., Court No.12, Aurangabad.2.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consentof the parties, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.3.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/informantcanvassed in vehemence that the Petitioner lodged a report withKranti Chowk Police Station on 05.12.2008 against Respondent No. 2 2 of 20 (( 3 ))3-*Cri-WP-1801-2024-Judgmenton the ground that Respondent No.2 is a medical practitioner runninga private hospital with the help of his staff members including thestaff nurse. On 13.09.2008, the informant was admitted his sisterShweta Wamanrao Deshmukh, who was suffering from FalciparumMalaria and her Paraside Index was -1. The Petitioner’s sister wasadmitted in the hospital of Respondent No. 2 at about 9.45 p.m.. Aftermedical examination, the Respondent No. 2 doctor prescribedinjection Larinate, tablet Gopan, capsule Doxy drugs. However, thePetitioner’s sister refused to consume the medicine. At about 10.45p.m., the Respondent No. 2 Medical Practitioner, directed to give oneDNS plus injection, Quinine 600 mg, to her. The Respondent No. 3,the Assistant Medical Practitioner to the Respondent No. 2 madeentry to that effect in the treatment card. Thereafter, the Petitionerhad brought all medicine from the Pharmacy and handed over to theRespondent No. 2. As per the directions of Respondent No. 2, thenurse i.e. Respondent No. 4 directly injected Quinine 600 m.g.injection in the vain of the patient Shweta in presence of thePetitioner. Subsequently, within a span of time, the condition ofShweta (patient) was deteriorated. Therefore, the Petitioner calledthe Respondent No. 2 Medical Officer, but he was reluctant to attend 3 of 20
Legal Reasoning
(( 4 ))3-*Cri-WP-1801-2024-Judgmentthe patient. Thereafter, the Petitioner informed the Respondent No.2about critical condition of his sister and She died in the hospital atabout 1.45 p.m.. 4.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further canvassedthat the Petitioner and his grandfather was insisted the RespondentNo. 2 for conducting Postmortem on dead body of the deceasedShweta, but the Respondent No. 2 refused the same on ground thathe would issue the death certificate and there is no necessity forconducting the Postmortem. According to the Petitioner cause ofdeath of his sister shown due to to Celebral Maleria. Therefore, thePetitioner and his relatives took dead body of Shweta at their villageand peformed last ritual. Thereafter, the Petitioner asked theRespondent No. 2 for medical papers about the treatment given to thedeceased Sheweta, but the Respondent No.2 declined to provide thesame. However, lastly, the Respondent No. 2 handed over the medicalpapers and thereafter he lodged a report with the Kranti ChowkPolice Station, on which basis Crime No. I-555 of 2008 registeredagainst the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for the offences punishable underSections 304 A, 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 4 of 20 (( 5 ))3-*Cri-WP-1801-2024-Judgment5.After due investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filedas against Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The learned trial Court framed thecharge as against the Respondents Nos. 2 to 4, for the offencepunishable under Sections 304 A 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 6.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner canvassed that theprosecution examined 8 witnesses. However, as per the evidence ofthe prosecution witnesses it is sufficient to frame the charge for theoffences punishable Section 304, 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C..Therefore, the Special Public Prosecutor submitted Exh. 149 anapplication for alteration and framing of charge for the offencepunishable under Sections 304, 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C..However, on 08.12.2023, the learned J.M.F.C. passed an order belowExh. 149 and rejected said application without considering theevidence available on record, which constitute an offence underSection 304 of I.P.C. Therefore, the Petitioner challenged said orderin Criminal Revision Application No. 88 of 2024 before the learnedSessions Court. However, on 21.06.2024, the learned Sessions Judgepassed the impugned order without considering the evidence of theprosecution witnesses. Therefore, impugned order as well as the 5 of 20 (( 6 ))3-*Cri-WP-1801-2024-Judgmentorder dated 08.12.2023 passed below Exh.149, are illegal and bad inlaw and liable to be quashed and set aside. 7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner furthercanvased that the trial Court out to have hold that, the treatment cardof the patient itself proves about negligence on the part ofRespondent No. 2 while giving directions to his subordinateRespondent No. 4 Staff Nurse about administering injection Quinine600 mg., stat and procedure adopted while administering injection ofQuinine is fatal. The Expert Committee Members also confirmedabout negligence on part of the Respondent no. 2. However, thelearned trial Court fail to consider and passed the impugned orderdated 17.02.2024 below Exh.149 only ground of application is vagueand silent on material ingredient.8.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further canvassedthat, on 18.10.2024, the Special Prosecutor filed Exh.173 anapplication for keeping the matter in abeyance because of pendencyof present Petition, however, said application came to be rejected.Therefore, again on 18.10.2024, the Prosecutor filed an applicationfor issuance of witness summons, namely, (i) Sugraji Deorao Jadhav 6 of 20 (( 7 ))3-*Cri-WP-1801-2024-Judgmentand (ii) Sanjay Pandurang Narwade, who are witness to the seizurepanchanama of certain documents from the Hospital of RespondentNo.2, but said application also rejected holding that seizurepanchanamas dated 05.12.2018 and 06.12.2018 are already admittedby the defence and said panchanamas are exhibited at Exh.167 and168.9.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance onthe case of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2012AIR SCW 930, and referred paragraph No.39, which reads as under:-“39. The scheme of Sections 279, 304A, 336, 337 and 338leaves no manner of doubt that these offences are punishedbecause of the inherent danger of the acts specified thereinirrespective of knowledge or intention to produce the result andirrespective of the result. These sections make punishable theacts themselves which are likely to cause death or injury tohuman life. The question is whether indictment of an accusedunder Section 304 Part II and Section 338 IPC can co-exist in acase of single rash or negligent act. We think it can. We do notthink that two charges are mutually destructive. If the act isdone with the knowledge of the dangerous consequences whichare likely to follow and if death is caused then not only that thepunishment is for the act but also for the resulting homicideand a case may fall within Section 299 or Section 300depending upon the mental state of the accused viz., as towhether the act was done with one kind of knowledge or theother or the intention. Knowledge is awareness on the part ofthe person concerned of the consequences of his act of omission 7 of 20 (( 8 ))3-*Cri-WP-1801-2024-Judgmentor commission indicating his state of mind. There may beknowledge of likely consequences without any intention.Criminal culpability is determined by referring to what a personwith reasonable prudence would have known.” 10.He further relied on the case of Shahaja @ ShahajanIsmail Mohd. Shaikh, Vs. State of Maharashtra, The Hon’ble SupremeCourt Criminal Appeal No.239 of 2017, decided on 14.07.2022. Hereferred paragraph 39 of the said judgment, which read as under:-“39. From the aforesaid it is evident that the learned publicprosecutor who con- ducted the prosecution before the trialcourt did not take the pains to bring on record the substantiveevidence of the aforesaid two witnesses i.e. the PW-4 and PW-10 resply, the fact of the accused having made a statement thathe had con- cealed the hammer and he was inclined to showthat spot, even though it has been recorded in the panchnama(Exh. 22) that the accused made such a state- ment. Thelearned public prosecutor does not appear to have realized thatthere should be substantive evidence on record in this regardand that the panchnama can be used only to corroborate theevidence of the panch and not as a substan- tive piece ofevidence. It appears that the panchnamas (Exh.22 and 23resply) were shown to the panch (PW-4) and he admitted hissignature and, therefore, it was exhibited at Exhs.22 and 23respectively. The examination-in-chief of the PW-4 does notshow that he was read over the panchnama before it was exhib-ited. This Court has time and again impressed upon thenecessity of reading over the panchnama which can be used asa piece of corroborative evidence. In spite of this, it isregrettable that the learned trial judge did not take the pains tosee that the panchnama was read over to the panch before itwas exhibited. A panchnama which can be used only to 8 of 20 (( 9 ))3-*Cri-WP-1801-2024-Judgmentcorroborate the panch has to be read over to the panch andonly thereafter it can be exhibited. If the panch has omitted tostate something which is found in the panchnama, then afterreading over the panchnama the panch has to be asked whetherthat portion of the panchnama is correct or not and whateverreply he gives has to be recorded. If he replies in theaffirmative, then only that portion of the panchnama can beread into evidence to corroborate the substantive evidence ofthe panch. If he replies in the negative, then that part of thepanchnama cannot be read in evidence for want of substan-tive evidence on record. It is, therefore, necessary that care istaken by the public prosecutor who conducts the trial that sucha procedure is followed while examining the panch at the trial.It is also necessary that the learned trial judge also sees that thepanchnama is read over the panch and thereafter thepanchnama is exhibited after following the procedure asindicated above.”11.Per contra, the learned APP canvassed that theprosecution issued notice under Section 294 of Cr.P.C., the defencealready admitted seizure panchanamas dated 05.12.2018 and06.12.2018. However, for sake of brevity, the prosecution prayed forissuance of summons to prove seizure Panchnamas because other twowitnesses are not traceable. Therefore, the learned trial Court couldhave issue the witness summons. 12.Per contra, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to4 supported findings of both the Courts below while rejecting theapplication for alteration/modification of chart as well as rejection of 9 of 20 (( 10 ))3-*Cri-WP-1801-2024-Judgmentprayer for issuance of witness summons through the PoliceCommissioner, Aurangabad because the witnesses (i) Prasad BaburaoDeshmukh and (ii) Ganesh Gangaram Choukekar were not found attheir given addresses. However, the Respondents/accused admittedboth the seizure panchanamas, therefore, there is no need to examinesaid witness.13.It is further canvassed that, Section 304A of I.P.C.,provides for offence for causing death by negligence. As contains oforal report death of petitioner’s sister caused due to Medicalnegligence on the part of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Accordingly, thelearned trial Court framed the charge and the prosecution examinedin all total 8 witnesses. The evidence of prosecution witnesses doesnot appears that death of deceased Shweta is culpable homicideprovided under Section 299 of I.P.C. Whereas the offence punishableunder Section 304 provides punishment for causing death with anintention to cause death or causing such bodily injury which is likelyto cause death. Therefore, evidence of the prosecution witnesses arenot sufficient to prove essential ingredients to frame the chargepunishable under Section 304 of I.P.C., hence, prayed for dismissal ofthe Petition. 10 of 20 (( 11 ))3-*Cri-WP-1801-2024-Judgment14.On face of record, it prima-facie appears that on13.09.2008 at about 9.45 p.m., the Petitioner admitted his sisterShweta Wamanrao Deshmukh in Hospital of the Respondent No.2 dueto Falciparum Malaria. Her Paraside Index was -1. After medicallyexamination, the Respondent No.2 prescribed Injection Larinate,Tablet Gopan, Capsule Doxy. But the patient refused to consume saidmedicine. Thereafter, at about 10.45 p.m., the Respondent No.2Medical Practitioner, suggested to provide DNS plus injection,Quinine 600 mg.. The Respondent no. 3 taken entry in patient cardon direction of the Respondent no. 2. No doubt, the Petitionerinformant brought the medicine from the Pharmacy and handed overto Respondent No.2. Thereafter the Respondent No.4 Staff Nurseinjected said injection on direction of Respondent No.2. However,physical health of the patient was deteriorated and she died duringthe hospitalization at about 1.45 p.m. 15.Needless to say that the Petitioner informant lodged areport, on which basis Crime No.555 of 2008 registered in KrantiChowk Police Station, against the present Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 forthe offence punishable under Sections 304A, 201 read with Section 11 of 20 (( 12 ))3-*Cri-WP-1801-2024-Judgment34 of I.P.C. After due investigation, the Investigating Officer filedcharge-sheet against Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The learned trial Courtframed the charge against Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for the offencepunishable under Section 304A, 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.,which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. 16.In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined inall total 8 witnesses. Thereafter, the prosecution filed Exh.149 anapplication for framing of charge under Section 304, 201 read with34 of I.P.C. On 17.02.2024, the learned J.M.F.C., passed an order andrejected said application. The learned trial court observed that theprosecution has not shown any evidence of the prosecution witnessesto constitution of offence punishable under Section 304 of I.P.C. Thelearned trial Court further observed that depositions of none ofwitness shows that act of the respondents/accused are intentional orthey have done any such act with the knownedge which is mainingredient to attract the offence punishable under Section 304 ofI.P.C. 17.It is not out of place to mention here that, the Petitionerapproached before the Sessions Court under Section 397 of the 12 of 20 (( 13 ))3-*Cri-WP-1801-2024-JudgmentCr.P.C., and challenged the order passed by the Trial Court. On21.06.2024, the learned Sessions Court passed the impugned orderand dismissed the Revision Petition holding that, PW1 to PW6 as wellas documentary evidence i.e. Report submitted by the members ofHighly Qualified Expert Committee appears about directly injectingQuinine injunction in vein of the patient and that would be thenegligence on the part of the Respondent No.4 Staff Nurse as well asthe Respondent No.2 Medical Practitioner. However, evidence of theprosecution witness does reveals that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 4injected said injection in vein of the deceased with an intention tocause her death. So also, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 were nothaving knowledge that due to injecting the injection of Quinine invein, the life of the patient would be in dangerous. Therefore, theessential ingredients of Part-I and Part-II of Section 304 of I.P.C., doesfulfilled. 18.In order to frame the charge punishable under Section304 of I.P.C., the prosecution requires to led sufficient evidence tofulfill the essential criteria of "culpable homicide" provided underSection 299 of I.P.C, which reads as under:- 13 of 20 (( 14 ))3-*Cri-WP-1801-2024-Judgment“299. Culpable homicide.— Whoever causes death by doing anact with the intention of causing death, or with the intention ofcausing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or withthe knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death,commits the offence of culpable homicide.”19.In order to constitute an offence under Section 299 ofI.P.C., there must be an act (A) with the intention of causing death,(B) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely tocause death, (C) with the Knowledge that the said act is likely tocause death. "Intend" and "Knowledge" is the essential ingredients ofan offence under Section 299, which postulates the existence ofpositive mental attitude and this mental condition is the special mensrea necessary for the offence. This view is supported by the ratio laiddown by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jayaraj Vs. State ofTamil Nadu, AIR 1976 SC 1519.20.Section 304 I.P.C. provides punishment for culpablehomicide not amounting to murder, which provides as under:-“304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting tomurder.— Whoever commits culpable homicide not amountingto murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, orimprisonment of either description for a term which mayextend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act bywhich the death is caused is done with the intention of causingdeath, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause 14 of 20 (( 15 ))3-*Cri-WP-1801-2024-Judgmentdeath,or with imprisonment of either description for a termwhich may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if theact is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death,but without any intention to cause death, or to cause suchbodily injury as is likely to cause death.”21.On plain reading of Section 304, it is clearly depicts that,if the death of deceased is caused and the case is covered by any ofthe five exceptions of Section 300 of I.P.C., then such culpablehomicide is not amounting to murder. Five exceptions to Section 300of I.P.C. provides as under:-“Exception 1.— When culpable homicide is not murder.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilstdeprived of the power of self-control by grave and suddenprovocation, causes the death of the person who gave theprovocation or causes the death of any other person by mistakeor accident. The above exception is subject to the followingprovisos:— (First) — That the provocation is not sought or voluntarilyprovoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harmto any person.(Secondly)— That the provocation is not givenby anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servantin the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.(Thirdly)— That the provocation is not given by anything donein the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.Exception 2.— Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender,in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence ofperson or property, exceeds the power given to him by law andcauses the death of the person against whom he is exercisingsuch right of defence without premeditation, and without any 15 of 20 (( 16 ))3-*Cri-WP-1801-2024-Judgmentintention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purposeof such defence.Exception 3.— Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender,being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for theadvancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to himby law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in goodfaith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due dischargeof his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towardsthe person whose death is caused.Exception 4.— Culpable homicide is not murder if it iscommitted without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heatof passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenderhaving taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusualmanner.Exception 5.— Culpable homicide is not murder when theperson whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteenyears, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his ownconsent.”22.I have gone through evidence of the prosecutionwitnesses PW 1 to 8 which have been produced by the Petitioner atpage No.73 (Annexure E-collectively). However, the evidence of thenone of the witnesses appears that the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4knowingly and intentionally injected Quinine injection in vein of thepatient or the accused Nos. 2 to 4 were having previous knowledgeabout causing of death of the patient, if the injection directly injectedin veins of the patient. 16 of 20 (( 17 ))3-*Cri-WP-1801-2024-Judgment23.Section 304A of I.P.C. provides as under:-“304A. Causing death by negligence.— Whoever causes thedeath of any person by doing any rash or negligent act notamounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished withimprisonment of either description for a term which mayextend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”24.Since evidence of the prosecution witnesses does notfulfill essential ingredients of culpable homicide provided underSection 299 of I.P.C., or five exceptions provided under Section 300 ofI.P.C. Therefore, there is no necessity for modification or alteration ofcharge to the offence under Section 304 from charge framed u/s304A of I.P.C.. Therefore, I do not find the the impugned order aswell as order passed by the learned trail court is illegal, bad, in law.Therefore, present Petition is liable to be dismissed. 25.Second question arises about rejection of application forissuance of witness summons to the witnesses of panchanamas isillegal and bad in law. In this regard, needless to mention here that,the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for theRespondents accused Nos. 2 to 4 have not disputed about exhibitionof seizure panchanama dated 05.12.2008 (Exh. 167 & 168) in respect 17 of 20 (( 18 ))3-*Cri-WP-1801-2024-Judgmentof seizure of documents from the hospital of Respondent No.2. On18.10.2024, the learned trial Court passed an order below Exh.175and held that both the panchanamas are already admitted in evidenceand already exhibited at Exh.167 and 168 respectively as both seizurepanchmanas are admitted by the defence counsel. Therefore,examination of hose witnesses is futile efforts and rejected the prayerfor issuance of service summons. Not only this but the prosecutionhas again filed Exh.174 an application for issuance of witnesssummons, but the learned trial Court passed an order holding thatthose panchanamas for which Prasad Baburao Deshmukh and GaneshGangaram Choukekar are stood witnesses are already been exhibited.Therefore, there is no ground for re-issuance of witness summonsthrough the Commissioner of Police as prayed by the prosecution. 26.Section 294 of Cr.P.C. provides as under:-“294. No formal proof of certain documents.(1) Where any document is filed before any Court by theprosecution or the accused, the particulars of every suchdocument shall be included in a list and the prosecution or theaccused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecutionor the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny thegenuineness of each such document.(2) The list of documentsshall be in such form as may be prescribed by the StateGovernment. 18 of 20 (( 19 ))3-*Cri-WP-1801-2024-Judgment(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed,such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial orother proceeding under this Code without proof of thesignature of the person to whom it purports to besigned :Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, requiresuch signature to be proved.”27.Section 58 of the Evidence Act provides that the fact neednot to be proved, if the other side admitted the said fact. 28.In the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab, AIR2005 SC 3180, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 26, held thus:-“26.A mere deviation from normal professional practice is notnecessarily evidence of negligence. Let it also be noted that amere accident is not evidence of negligence. So also an error ofjudgment on the part of a professional is not negligence per se.Higher the acuteness in emergency and higher thecomplication, more are the chances of error of judgment. Attimes, the professional is confronted with making a choicebetween the devil and the deep sea and he has to choose thelesser evil. The medical professional is often called upon toadopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, butwhich he honestly believes as providing greater chances ofsuccess for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesserrisk but higher chances of failure. Which course is moreappropriate to follow, would depend on the facts andcircumstances of a given case. The usual practice prevalentnowadays is to obtain the consent of the patient or of theperson incharge of the patient if the patient is not be in aposition to give consent before adopting a given procedure. Solong as it can be found that the procedure which was in factadopted was one which was acceptable to medical science as onthat date, the medical practitioner cannot be held negligentmerely because he chose to follow one procedure and notanother and the result was a failure.” 19 of 20 (( 20 ))3-*Cri-WP-1801-2024-Judgment29.In the case in hand, the prosecution already issued noticeunder Section 294 and called upon the Respondent Nos. 2 to4/accused persons to admit or deny certain documents. During thecourse of trial, the Respondents 2 to 4 admitted both thepanchanamas dated 05.12.2008 and 06.12.2008. It well settledprincipal of law that, admitted fact need not be proved under Section58 of the Evidence Act. Since both seizure panchanamas are admittedby the Respondents 2 to 4 and already exhibited, therefore,examination witnesses and issuance of witness summons to otherwitnesses who are witnesses to the seizure panchanama is notnecessary and proved documents during course of trial can read inevidence, which can be considered while passing the final order. 30.In view of above, I do not find any substance in thepresent Petition. Hence, it is dismissed. Accordingly, Rule discharged.31.The prayer for further extension of interim relief is herebyrejected because trial of the matter will be halted and no fruitfulpurpose will be served. [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] SMS 20 of 20