RANJEETSINGH GULABSINGH CHUNGADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) In A Trial Which Was Registered As Sessions Trial In The year 2002, several legal filibusters have occurred resulting into protraction of trial till this date i.e. over a period of 13 years. Now, in the instant application, there is one more legal filibuster namely; whether after reconstruction of the record, which was torn, the reconstructed record would become primary evidence? Obviously, it would not. But then the learned trial Judge has held that the said record reconstructed by the office for want of evidence would certainly become a primary evidence with which I do not agree. There is, therefore, merit in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant.

(3.) It Is Not In Dispute That The Prosecution Realizing The difficulty, filed an application Exh.202 for leading secondary evidence or rather for permission to lead the secondary evidence. The grievance made by Mr. Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel was rejected by the learned trial Judge and held that the reconstructed record would constitute a primary evidence. Mr. Mardikar then submitted that order of rejection of Exh.202 has not been challenged by the prosecution. Therefore, this Court would not be in a position to deal with the said order on Exh.202.