Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gangadhar s/o Kishanrao Metewad, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging an order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 3, Kannad, District Aurangabad. The impugned order rejected the petitioner's applications seeking adjournment to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, resulting in the petitioner losing the opportunity to cross-examine them. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Vijay Sharma, argued that the rejection was erroneous. The State, represented by Mr. K.N. Lokhande, opposed the petition. The High Court, presided over by Justice Z.A. Haq, found that the impugned order did not suffer from any error of jurisdiction. However, considering the proposition laid down in P. Sanjeeva Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 7 SCC 56, and the facts of the case, the court passed an order to subserve the ends of justice. The court directed the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class to give an opportunity to the petitioner/accused to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. The learned advocate for the petitioner undertook that the cross-examination would be completed within two months. The court made the rule returnable forthwith and disposed of the petition accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Right to Cross-Examine - Adjournment - The petitioner/accused sought adjournment to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, which was rejected by the Magistrate - The High Court, relying on P. Sanjeeva Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 7 SCC 56, directed the Magistrate to grant an opportunity for cross-examination to subserve the ends of justice, with an undertaking to complete cross-examination within two months (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner/accused should be given an opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses after his adjournment applications were rejected.
Final Decision
The High Court directed the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, [Court No. 3], Kannad, District Aurangabad to give an opportunity to the petitioner/accused to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. The learned advocate for the petitioner undertook that the cross-examination will be completed within two months. Rule made returnable forthwith and disposed of.
Law Points
- Right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses
- Adjournment for cross-examination
- Ends of justice
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (11) 2
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1465 of 2016
Mr. Vijay Sharma (for Petitioner), Mr. K.N. Lokhande (A.P.P. for Respondent - State)
Gangadhar s/o Kishanrao Metewad
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition challenging the order of Judicial Magistrate rejecting adjournment applications for cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's applications for adjournment to cross-examine prosecution witnesses were rejected by the Magistrate, resulting in loss of opportunity to cross-examine.
Previous Decisions
The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 3, Kannad, District Aurangabad rejected the petitioner's applications for adjournment to cross-examine prosecution witnesses.
Issues
Whether the petitioner/accused should be given an opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses after his adjournment applications were rejected.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the rejection of adjournment applications was erroneous and deprived him of the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses.
The State opposed the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
The court, relying on P. Sanjeeva Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, held that even if the impugned order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction, an opportunity for cross-examination should be granted to subserve the ends of justice.
Judgment Excerpts
Though, I find that the impugned order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction, considering the proposition laid down in the judgment given in the case of P.Sanjeeva Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2012) 7 Supreme Court Cases – 56, and the facts of the present case, the following order is passed to sub-serve the ends of justice.
Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, [Court No. 3], Kannad, District Aurangabad shall give an opportunity to the petitioner/accused to cross examine the prosecution witnesses.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 1465 of 2016 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kannad, which rejected his applications for adjournment to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. The High Court heard the matter and passed the order on 18th November 2016.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
