Dmt 1 crirevappln498-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 498 OF 2011 Sabhapati R. Giri & Ors. .. Applicants. versus The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondent. ..... Mr. R.N. Mishra with Ashok B. Rastogi for the Applicants. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State. ...... CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. (VACATION JUDGE) 4 November 2011. P.C. : Criminal Revision Application No. 498 of 2011 Dmt 2 crirevappln498-11 arising inter alia under Section 307 of the IPC has been in progress against the Applicants as the accused. The charge sheet contains the names of 15 witnesses. Five witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. The last witness was examined on 18 October 2011. The statement of the accused was recorded on 19 October 2011. The accused made an application for examining the defence witnesses from out of the witnesses cited by the prosecution but not examined by the prosecution. 2. The prosecution is entitled not to examine all the witnesses cited. The accused cannot require the prosecution to compulsorily examine any witness. However, if the prosecution has not examined certain witnesses the accused may apply to examine them as their witnesses. The accused has applied to examine three witnesses out of the prosecution witnesses. I am told that that is essentially to show alibi of the accused. This would be examination of the witnesses as defence witnesses strictly on merits of the case. To that Dmt 3 crirevappln498-11 extent the accused would be entitled to have their application granted. 3. The impugned order has rejected the prayer for examination of three witnesses as defence witnesses on the ground that the defence does not enjoy the same privilege as that of the prosecution. The observation is partly true. Indeed it is the privilege of the prosecution to examine some or all the witnesses which are cited in the charge sheet. However, if the witnesses are not examined, the accused must have the right to get them examined. 4. The above chronology shows that the application is not made merely to delay the proceedings. Hence, the application deserves to be allowed. 5. This application is made by way of urgency because the case has been kept today before the learned Sessions Judge for arguments. Hence, it is directed that the learned Sessions Dmt 4 crirevappln498-11 Judge shall consider , at his convenience, the examination of the witnesses mentioned in the application of the accused before hearing arguments. 6. By consent, the Criminal Revision Application is, accordingly, disposed of. (Mrs. Roshan Dalvi, J.)