Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/357/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 357 of
2010
======================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant
Versus
RANMAL
KANABHAI BHEDA AAHIR & 3 - Respondents
======================================
Appearance :
MR M.R.MENGDEY,
APP for the Applicant.
MR ASHISH M DAGLI for
the Respondents.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 23/11/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Rule.
Mr.Dagli, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf
of the respondents- original accused.
2. In
the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the
learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the
present Criminal Revision Application is taken up for final hearing
today.
3. The
present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by
the applicant – State of Gujarat to quash and set aside the
order dated 12/04/2010 passed by the Trial Court, by which, the
learned Trial Court has not granted permission exhibiting the
documents produced at Mark 47/1 i.e. statement of one Pravin Popatlal
recorded by Royalty Inspector, Porbandar during his inquiry and
performing his duty on 28/12/2006; Royalty receipt/royalty book;
panchnama prepared by Royalty Inspector and other documents.
4. Having
heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective
parties and considering the impugned judgement and order dated
12/04/2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Porbandar, it appears
that the learned Sessions Court has committed an error and/or
illegality in not exhibiting the documents produced at Mark 47/1,
which are produced during the course of recording of evidence of
Andegneshwar Shivnarayan Rav, Royalty Inspector – P.W.29,
examined at Exh-48. Considering the documents which were sought to be
executed, it appears that those documents are relevant to prove the
case of the prosecution. If the accused are disputing the said
documents, an ample opportunity shall be given to the accused to
cross-examine the said witnesses with respect to those documents,
which are sought to be executed. However by not exhibiting the
documents produced at Mark 47/1, the prosecution case is prejudiced.
5. In
view of the above, Mr.Mahesh Pujara, learned advocate appearing for
Mr.Ashish Dagli, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondents – original accused, has submitted that in that case
if this Court is of the opinion that learned Sessions Court ought to
have given exhibit number to the documents produced at Mark-47/1, in
that case, the respondents herein-accused shall be given an
opportunity to cross-examine the concerned witnesses with respect to
the said documents. The aforesaid request seems to be reasonable.
6. In
view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove and stand
taken by Mr.Mahesh Pujara, learned advocate appearing on behalf of
the respondents – original accused, the impugned order dated
12/04/2010 passed by Sessions Court, Porbandar in not exhibiting the
documents produced at Mark-47/1 is hereby quashed and the Trial Court
is hereby directed to give exhibit number to the documents, which are
produced at Mark-47/1 subject to right of the original accused to
cross-examine the concerned witnesses with respect to the said
documents. It will always open for the respondents – original accused
to cross-examine the concerned witnesses on the said documents and
certainly the said right shall be given to the original accused by
the concerned Judge. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
[M.R.SHAH,J]
*dipti
Top