SUSHMA SAKHARAM SATAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD.

(2.) BY this application, petitioner challenges the order dated 29th April 2009 passed by the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate rejecting the applicant's application for recalling of a witness and the order dated 16th June 2009 passed by the Sessions Court rejecting the revision application.

(3.) IN Rajendra Prasad (Supra) the prosecutor had made a request to recall a witness. That application was rejected and the High Court confirmed the order. The Supreme Court while reversing the decision of the High Court held that while the prosecution cannot be allowed to recall a witness to fill up the lacunaes in the prosecution case, held that there is a distinction between filling up the lacunaes and oversight committed by the Public Prosecutor during the trial either in not producing the relevant material or not eliciting the relevant answers from a witness. The present case appears to be clearly a case wherein the defence wants to fill up the lacunae in the cross examination and that too after the statement u/s.313 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded. In my view, the present case is distinguishable on facts from the case of Rajendra Prasad (supra).