SHRI VARDACHARI 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 applicant/accused shall be allowed to examine witnesses listed in support of his defence. Defence shall file a list of witnesses as also a list of documents and shall call upon the prosecution to admit or deny genuineness of such documents as contemplated u/s. 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the prosecution admits genuineness of the documents, such documents may be read in evidence in the course of trial without formal proof. Proof of such documents may not be required in view of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is intended to prevent delay which may occur due to time consumed in examination of witnesses or further recording of the evidence. THE impugned order is set aside. THE application is allowed in the above terms. THE parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this judgment duly authenticated be supplied to the learned Advocate for the applicant.