{1} Cri. Revision No.143/2011 drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.143 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Satish Babanrao Kshirsagar & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.D.Kaldate, APP for applicant State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 18 th October 2011 PER COURT: 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 21.04.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Beed below Exhibit-61 and Exhibit-63 in Sessions Case No.119/2009. 2. Heard learned APP, who took me through the entire record. Vide application at Exhibit-61, the Prosecutor had requested the trial court to allow the prosecution to examine certain witnesses, whose names are not mentioned in the said application. It is further stated in the application that certain phone call details are made available and some witnesses from the service provider company are also present in the Court. However, {2} Cri. Revision No.143/2011 the application is silent as to at what exact stage of investigation these details are collected by the IO. Application at Exhibit-63 was moved by the prosecutor requesting the trial court to allow the prosecution to produce certain documents. Say was filed on behalf of the accused opposing the said applications. 3. The trial court rejected the said applications on the ground that the same are moved at a very belated stage and secondly that there is no record to show that the alleged mobiles belong to the accused and they have used the same at the time of alleged kidnapping. 4. Perusal of the applications nowhere disclose that the accused were the holders of the said mobile phones from which calls were received by the complainant. Nor the evidence discloses that the same were found in the custody of the accused at the time of their arrest nor the same were recovered at the instance of the accused. 5. No doubt, the Court is empowered u/s 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call the certain witnesses though not {3} Cri. Revision No.143/2011 cited as witness by the prosecution but who are acquainted with the facts of the prosecution case irrespective of the fact that their statements are recorded during the investigation or not, however, in the present, case, as stated above, it is not the case of the prosecution that the mobile phones from which calls were received by the complainant were in possession of the accused or the same were recovered at the instance of the accused. In absence of any relation between the so called witnesses, prosecution intends to examine, and the role alleged against the accused, the trial court has rightly rejected the applications. It is specifically observed by the trial court in paragraph No.6 of the impugned order that - “As per record itself, the alleged phone numbers from which there was some talk with the complainant and his wife are belong to others, i.e. other than the accused”. Thus, the trial court has rightly rejected the applications at Exhibit-61 and 63, which does not require any interference by this Court. Consequently, the revision application, being sans merits, stands rejected in liminie. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B11/crirevn143-11