1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3108 OF 2009 Gyandev Sadashiv Shinde ...Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Balasaheb Deshmukh for the applicant Mr.H.J.Dedhia A.P.P for State CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 14, 2009 P.C. . Not on board. Taken on board. 1 In this application, the applicant is the respondent in a proceedings under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005. On his request a witness summons was issued to the witness by the name Sanjay Bharat Bhargale. An application was made by the applicant before the learned Magistrate pointing out that one Mr.Magar on behalf of the second respondent has threatened the said witness by contacting him on land line as well as on cell phone and therefore, the said witness has not appeared. The prayer in the said application was for examining the said witness on commission. By the impugned order, said application has been rejected. 2 The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the appointment of court commissioner is necessary in as much as due to the threats received the witness is not willing to appear before the court. He submitted that the learned Judge could not have recorded a finding that the witness is not supposed to depose against himself and the examination of the said witness is not necessary. 2 3 It is true that after issuing summons to the witness, the court could not have observed that examination of the said witness is not necessary. However, going by the averments made in the application by the applicant, no case is made out for appointment of Court Commissioner. This is not a case where the witness has made any complaint about the alleged threats. Even assuming that the threat is received by the witness, there are remedies available. If the witness is not willing to come before the court, the applicant can always adopt appropriate procedure. No case is made out for interference with the order by which the application for examination of witness on commission is rejected. It is however, clarified that the observation made by the learned trial Judge that the examination of the said witness is not necessary will not come in the way of the applicant in taking proper steps for procuring the presence of the witness. JUDGE