MP 1 WP3203_10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3203 OF 2010 Sandeep Balasaheb Shelke and another ... Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents Mr. Subhash Hulyalkar, Advocate for Petitioners. Mrs. M. R. Tidke, APP for the State. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J. TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2011 P. C. : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The writ petition impugns the order dated 13th August 2010 vide which the application filed by the petitioners for recalling the witnesses for further cross-examination after alteration of charges, came to be rejected. 3. The petitioners were initially charged with the offences punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution in support of its case examined seven witnesses. However, after the examination of the witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge altered the charge from Section 326 to Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. As such, an application was made by the present petitioners for recalling the witnesses for further cross-examination. The learned Sessions Judge has rejected the said application on the ground that the prosecution has not examined any further witnesses after alteration of the charges. MP 2 WP3203_10 4. Out of seven witnesses, two witnesses have died and only five are remained. Undoubtedly, the charge under Section 307 is a graver charge than the charge under Section 326. In that view of the mater, in the interests of justice and in order to ensure that the accused get complete opportunity to defend their case, the said application is ought to have been allowed. 5. The learned Trial Court while allowing the application could have expedited the programme of trial and direct that the applicants would not be granted any adjournment for further examination of the said witnesses. 6. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. Impugned order dated 13th August 2010 is quashed and set aside. The application filed by the present petitioners for recalling the witnesses for further cross- examination is allowed. 7. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in the aforesaid terms. (B. R. GAVAI, J)