A R BROTHERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I do not see any illegality or error in exercise of jurisdiction when the ld. Magistrate has disallowed the question pertaining to the production of record of transaction which is recorded after the evidence was over. This portion is to be found at Page 39 of this Petition, which forms part of cross examination of P.W.1 on 25th June, 1998. That portion of cross examination is recorded after the witness was recalled.

(2.) So far as recording of voluntary statement of the witness at the fag end of the said subsequent cross examination appearing at Page 39 is concerned, Mr.Mundergi, the learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 has no objection if it is declared not forming part of cross examination and it being not in response to the question put by the defence, it should not be held binding on them. On examining the word witness volunteers as stated in the course of cross-examination by the Presiding Officer of the Court, it becomes clear that it is not in response to a question of counsel who is examining the witness either by way of examination-in-chief or by way of cross-examination. In view of this clear position, when the otherside has no objection, it is directed that the trial Court shall proceed with the said part of deposition which has come on record as a result of witness, volunteering to deal with in that manner.

(3.) So far as the Petition is concerned, subject to the aforesaid direction, it is disposed of.