VIJAYA TRIMBAKRAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 8 and the learned APP for the State.

(2.) Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the Order passed by the Sessions judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 452 of 2002 whereby the application filed by the prosecution to examine two witnesses as additional witnesses was rejected by the trial Court.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the widow of the deceased Trimbakrao Shirole that the application was preferred by the prosecution regarding statements of two witnesses and seeking permission, thereafter, to examine them as additional witnesses. However, the said application filed by the prosecution was rejected. In para 12 of the petition, it is stated that though a request was made to the State Government to file Criminal Revision application, the Law and Judiciary Department had taken a decision not to file revision application and, therefore, the present Criminal Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the Investigating Officer had not proceeded with the trial properly, the statements of two witnesses were not recorded and, therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court may permit the prosecution to record their statements and, thereafter, they should be called and their evidence may be recorded by the trial Court. The learned Counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India and another) , reported in 1991 (Supp. 1) S. C. C. 271 and also in the case of (Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and anotherv. State of Gujarat and Others) , reported in 2004 (4) S. C. C. 158.