MAHESH KUMAR TOSHNIWAL Vs. SHRI SAI GANESH SEALINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Writ Petition, the petitioner (original accused) has challenged orders, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 'A' Court, Vasco (hereinafter referred to as the Magistrate) and the Additional Sessions Judge at Margao.

(2.) By the impugned order dtd. 17/11/2018, the Magistrate dismissed an Application (Exhibit-34), filed on behalf of the petitioner under Sec. 311 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to recall the complainant i.e. the respondent for further cross examination. The said Application was filed in the backdrop that on 27/3/2018, the Magistrate recorded that while the complainant and its Advocate were present in Court, further time was being sought on behalf of the accused i.e. the petitioner for cross examining the complainant. The request was rejected and the cross examination was closed. The petitioner contended in the said Application before the Magistrate that since there was a change in Advocates, further time was sought. It was contended that the Magistrate took a harsh view while passing the order closing the cross examination and in the interest of justice, opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioner.

(3.) By order dtd. 17/11/2018, the Magistrate refused to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and dismissed the Application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner was advised to file a Revision Application before the Sessions Court. By the impugned judgment and order dtd. 18/3/2020, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the Revision Application as not maintainable on the ground that the order made subject matter of challenge was an interlocutory order.