1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 3773 of 2008 1. AMBADAS ANNAJI SUKALE R/O SHEGAON, TAH SHEGAON, DISTT.BULDANA ....Applicant VERSUS 1. STATE OF MAH & ANOR. 2. REKHA AMBADAS SUKALE R/O DEVRAO BABA CHAL, RAJPURA,AKOLA ....Non applicants --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A. S. Mardikar, Advocate for applicant. Ms. T. D. Khade, A.P.P. for non applicant no.1. Mr. Choure, Advocate h/f Mr. Deshpande, Advocate for non applicant no.2. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED:- 5 th AUGUST, 2009. 1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. 2. Non applicant no. 2 filed complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shegaon being Criminal Case No. 107/1993. In the body of the complaint, non applicant no. 2 has not mentioned names of Mr. Dhore and Mr. Joshi, as witnesses. Subsequently, an application is filed by non application no. 2 praying that she should be permitted to examine Mr. Dhore and Mr. Joshi as witnesses. That application was heard and decided by learned Judicial Magistrate 2 First Class and granted the same by order dated 15.12.2005. The revision filed against the said order being Criminal Revision No. 5/2006 was decided by learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon by order dated 25.11.2008. The said revision was dismissed against which the applicant has filed this application. 3. The law as regards allowing persons, who are not named witness in the complaint, has gone substantially changed and if the person is not named as witness and his name is absent in the list of witnesses set out in the complaint, the complainant is not prohibited from examining the said person and that is how the Courts below have approached to the problem. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered this aspects from proper perspective and rejected the revision. 4. I am not inclined to take different view. Undoubtedly, it will be open for the applicant to cross-examine the witnesses and try to bring before the Court an evidence, which would be favourable to him. The application cannot be admitted. Hence, the order. The application is dismissed. JUDGE kahale