1 cr-apln-4388-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLN. NO. 4388 OF 2010 Sunil Shashikant Zaveri and Ors. ..Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent .... Mr. Nitin Sejpal Adv. for applicants Mr. V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 28, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2 The applicants are original accused nos. 1 to 3 in CC No. 165/PW/2008 which is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 35th Court, CST, Mumbai. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.8.2010 passed by the learned Magistrate, the applicants approached this Court. By the said order, the application preferred by 2 cr-apln-4388-10 the present applicants for putting certain questions in cross-examination to the witness i.e. PW 1 who was recalled, came to be disallowed. 3 Brief facts of this case are as under: That the applicants had preferred applications for recall of PW 1 to PW 4 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. so as to bring on record the material contradictions and omissions and to ask questions to the witnesses regarding filing of the complaint with the police station prior to filing of the FIR which was exhibited. The said application (Exh.14) was granted by the trial Court on 28.6.2010. The said order was not challenged by any of the parties including the applicants. Pursuant to the said order, the complainant was recalled. He was cross-examined by the advocate for the accused. However, during the cross- examination, certain questions came to be asked to the witness which were not in the nature of bringing any omissions or contradictions on record, hence, questions were disallowed. Thereafter, the applicants preferred application Exh. 15 for permission to put those questions in cross-examination. The application came to be rejected by order dated 18.8.2010, hence, the present application. 4 It is not disputed that power of the court under section 311 of 3 cr-apln-4388-10 Cr.P.C. are wide and can be exercised at any stage so long as court is in seisin of the proceedings. It is also true that the said powers are to be exercised for just decision of the case. 5 The trial Court had allowed the application Exh. 14 to the limited extent that is to bring on record omissions and contradictions and it is only for that limited purpose that the witnesses were recalled. However, thereafter, the questions were asked which were not in the nature of bringing any omissions or contradictions on record. Exhibit 15 shows the nature of questions which is reproduced herein below. The said questions are as under: 1) How you came to know that complaint was lodged against you by the accused? 2) Whether the inquiry was held against you in respect of complaint lodged by accused? 3) What was the time gap between two trains? 4) How the compartment of 1st class situated between how many compartments in the train? 5) What is your relation with PW 2? 6) Upto what time you were in police station on the day of incident? 7) After recording of FIR did you anytime visit the police station? 4 cr-apln-4388-10 Whether you accompany with the other witness to the police station on the day of incident? 6 On perusal of the above questions, it is noticed that by the said questions the applicants were expanding the scope of the order passed by the trial Court. The prayer made by the applicants was allowed by the trial Court hence, the applicants cannot now make any grievance as the prayer in Exh.14 was fully allowed by the trial Court. By putting questions which are reflected in Exh. 15 it would be expanding the scope of the said application and hence, the trial Court was right in rejecting the said application Exh. 15. The applicant had prayed for recall of the witnesses on the specific ground mentioned in the application, hence, obviously the questions would be restricted to the grounds mentioned in the application. The application was allowed taking into consideration the grounds mentioned in the application. No other ground was raised in the said application for recall of the witness. Hence, the learned trial Judge was right in disallowing the questions and restricting the questions to the prayer made in application Exh. 14. No case is made out for interference with order dated 18.8.2010. Application is rejected. 5 cr-apln-4388-10 7 In the event the applicants wish to recall the witnesses for any other reason, it would be open to the applicants to prefer appropriate application before the trial Court which the trial Court will consider on its own merits. 8 Application disposed of with above observations. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]