RAJDHAR GURU NANABUWA BHANEGAONKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel Shri M.P. Karia for the applicants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri P.V. Bhoyar for non-applicant No. 1/State and learned Counsel Shri D.B. Walthare for non-applicant No. 2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) The applicants are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 506 and 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha. Non-applicant No. 2 is relative of the prosecutrix and is allowed to intervene in the proceedings. The grievance of the applicants is that the intervention of non-applicant No. 2 is too much and it disturbs the whole proceedings. It is also submitted that irrelevant documents are taken on record and the proceedings are not being conducted in accordance with law. An application was filed before the learned trial Judge for raising all the objections in respect of interference by the intervenor. The learned trial Judge has passed the order below Exhibit 119. The order of the learned trial Judge is not very much clear on the issue raised before me. However, one thing is certain that the learned trial Judge has given too much liberty to the intervenor to intervene during the course of trial. In my opinion, so much of liberty to the intervenor is not permissible when the case is being prosecuted by the State. The intervenor can assist the prosecutor and/or he can engage a lawyer to assist the prosecutor during the course of trial. The intervenor himself or through his lawyer cannot address the court on the issues which can be agitated through the prosecutor. The intervenor also cannot encroach upon the rights of the prosecutor as far as production of documents in the court is concerned. Since this Court is of the opinion that the intervenor has been granted undue liberty by the trial Court, this Court passes the following order.