((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4482 OF 2008 Abdul Karim Khatansa Godikar & ors. Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent V.V.Purwant for applicants. H.J.Dedhia, APP for the State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 13th April 2009 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants. The applicants have been arraigned as accused and have been prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. The submission of the counsel for the applicants is that present application under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code of 1973") was filed by the prosecution belatedly after the statement of the accused under section 313 of the said Code of 1973 was recorded. He submitted that there was enough ((-2-)) opportunity for the prosecution to prove that the first informant was able to sign. He submitted that the application under section 311 of the said Code of 1973 which was made at a belated stage should not have been allowed by the learned Sessions Judge thereby causing serious prejudice to the applicants (accused). 3. I have perused the impugned order. The impugned order permits additional evidence to be produced as per the application at Exhibit-68. The impugned order also directs that the witness summons be issued to the witnesses for proving the documents. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the discretion under section 311 of the said Code of 1971 has been rightly exercised by the Trial Judge. No interference is called for. The application is rejected. However, it is made clear that the learned Trial Judge will grant adequate opportunity to the applicants to cross examine the witnesses which may be examined by the prosecution in terms of the impugned order. (A.S.OKA, J.)