NAYNA RAJAN GUHAGARKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Learned APP waives service on behalf of respondent-State.

(3.) By this petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 2nd February 2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, below Exhibit 1 in Special Case (ACB) No. 70 of 2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was impermissible for the learned Judge to recall the complainant Sujata Sutar, to prove the memory card seized in the present case, in the peculiar facts of this case. He submits that the impugned order dated 2nd February 2021 was passed taking recourse to Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C'), after the petitioner had disclosed his defence in the written notes of arguments submitted on his behalf under Section 314 of Cr.P.C. He submits that the impugned order was passed after the learned Judge had completed recording of evidence of witnesses; after recording 313 statement of the petitioner and after hearing the arguments in the said case. He submits that it was not permissible for the learned Judge to summon the complainant- Sujata Sutar to fill in the lacunae in the prosecution evidence, more particularly, after the petitioner had placed on record her written arguments. Learned counsel relied on the judgments in the cases of B. D. Goel v. Ebrahim Haji Husen Sanghani and Ors.; 2001 0 CrLJ 450 ; Shankar Lotlikar v. Pundalik Venktesh Verlekar; AIR Online 2020 Bom 1359 and Nayana Rajan Guhagarkar v. The State of Maharashtra; Cri. APL/1496/2016 dated 24/01/2018.