VARDACHARI RANGACHARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally by the consent of Mr. Mahesh Singh, Advocate for the applicant and Mr.A.S.Parihar, A.P.P. for the respondent/State.

(2.) By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed below Exh.77 on 10.3.2011 by the learned Special Judge, Chandrapur in Special Case (ACB) No.4 of 1998. It appears that the learned Advocate for the defence had filed an application (Exh.77) in the trial Court contending that the accused came to know in or about the month of December, 2010 that the first informant Ku. Surekha is involved in a series of serious misconducts and that she was suspended on account of grave charges against her. Departmental enquiry was also held against her and she was found guilty. Defence had obtained information regarding misconducts of the first informant in the third week of December, 2010 and had produced certain documents listed with Exh.73 on 4.1.2011, which were allowed to be so produced by the learned trial Judge. Those documents, according to the defence, are not only relevant, but are required to be proved by the defence to substantiate their case. The defence, therefore, prayed for examination of certain witnesses so as to prove those documents by way of defence evidence who were to be examined on behalf of the defence. The learned trial Judge held that the documents received and produced by the defence on record were in respect of the subsequent incident regarding alleged misconduct of the first informant and therefore, they were not relevant. According to the learned trial Judge the witnesses proposed and to be examined as defence witnesses were not important as far as the trial in question is concerned. Thus, the application (Exh.77) was rejected.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the documents which were allowed to be produced by the trial Judge cannot be proved unless the defence is allowed to adduce evidence in support of its defence. The documents could not have been produced earlier because they were obtained under the Right to Information Act in the month of December, 2010 when the accused came to know about the misconduct of the first informant. It is submitted that if the evidence which is proposed to be brought on record on behalf of the defence is not allowed to be adduced, the defence would suffer irreparable loss as defence would not be in a position to otherwise assail credibility of complainant/first informant.