RAJNI VISHRAM PATIL Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S.J. Salunke, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard Mr. D.N. Salvi, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 - C.B.I. The respondent No. 2, who is in prison, is reported to have been served with notice. Heard Mr. S.R. Palnitkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Maharashtra. By consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the controversy involved, Rule is issued only against the respondent Nos. 1 and 3. By consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 - C.B.I. and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, taken up for final hearing forthwith.

(2.) THE petitioner is the widow of Vishram Patil, regarding whose murder, Sessions Case No. 8 of 2006 is pending before the Sessions Court at Jalgaon. The respondent No. 2 is one of the accused in the said case. There are two more accused in the case whose trial has been separated. The petitioner has been, from the very beginning, making a grievance that two persons - Gajendrasingh Patil and Ulhas Patil - who were the main accused, in as much as the murder was committed allegedly at their instance, were not shown as accused in the case and were not being prosecuted. She, therefore, made a number of applications before the trial Court and even before this Court from time to time seeking various reliefs, with the ultimate object of ensuring that the said two persons - believed to be perpetrators of the offence - are also prosecuted. Though the petitioner was not cited as a witness, on her application, she has been examined during the trial, as a Court witness.

(3.) THE petitioner has made an application (Exhibit 610) purportedly under the provisions of Section 319 of the Code praying that the said Gajendrasingh Patil and Ulhas Patil be added as accused persons as contemplated under Section 319 of the Code. That application has been filed on 19th December, 2013. The application remained pending and the trial proceeded further. The petitioner then made an application (Exhibit 620) stating that the trial of the respondent No. 2 was concluding, and that, the application under section 319 of the Code (Exhibit 610) needed to be decided before the conclusion of the trial. It appears that the respondent No. 2 objected to the said application and submitted that his examination under section 313 of the Code be carried out. It appears that the learned counsel for the C.B.I. submitted that though the provisions of Section 319 of the Code were misinterpreted by the petitioner, the prosecution would leave the decision on that issue to the discretion of the Court i.e. deciding whether the application at Exhibit 610 should be decided prior to the recording of the statement of the respondent No. 2.