1 1.REVN.253-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.253 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra. ..APPLICANT. VERSUS Mahindra Laxman Tawde and 2 others. ..RESPONDENTS. .......... Mr.Rajesh More, A.P.P. for the Applicant-State. None for the Respondents. .......... CORAM : A.R. JOSHI, J. DATED : 12TH DECEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard learned APP Mr. Rajesh More for the State – which is the applicant in the present matter. 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 who are the original accused were already served and affidavit to that effect dated 5.10.2011 is already filed by the Senior Inspector of Police, Traffic Wadala Division, Wadala, Mumbai. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not present even though they were served on 2 1.REVN.253-11 22.9.2011. Their dated signatures are appearing on page No.5 which is annexed to the affidavit of service. 3. By the present application, State wants to quash and set aside the order passed by the Sessions Judge at Sewree, Mumbai in Sessions Case No.612 of 2007. By the impugned order, the entire Sessions Case was closed resulting in the acquittal of all the three accused. They were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 255, 256, 258, 259, 420 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code in the matter of indulging in counterfeiting Government stamps to the tune of more than Rs.32 lacs and odd. 4. Charge was earlier framed by the Sessions Court on 24.7.2008. Trial commenced on 20.10.2010. Prosecution witness No.1 was examined on 20.10.2010. Thereafter, on 7.12.2010 prosecution witness No.2 was examined. One more witness – Officer from ICICI Bank, was also present on that day, but, could not be examined as the matter was adjourned to immediate next date i.e. 8.12.2010. On that day also, the 3 1.REVN.253-11 witness was present, but, the Sessions Judge opined that said witness was irrelevant so far as the case was concerned and he was not allowed to be examined. On this, State filed an application asking for further time to get other witnesses. In the said application, list of witnesses was given. It is curious enough to note that the Sessions Judge passed cryptic order on the said application below Exh.43 preferred by the State, which reads as under :- “The prayer is incorrect. The prosecution was already permitted and examine the witnesses. But they are not bringing any record and the witnesses who are not relevant are brought. The defence counsel has stated at the bar that they are not directing the seizure document but instead of referring them in 294 Cr.P.C.. These witnesses are brought again and again. Hence no order can be granted now.” 5. This Court has no doubt in the mind that in fact the mode adopted by the Sessions Judge in putting an end to the matter of a serious nature involving amount of Rs.32 lacs and odd in the matter of forged and fabricated broker note stamps, without giving sufficient opportunity to the prosecution to bring all their relevant witnesses. This 4 1.REVN.253-11 is more so in view of the dates mentioned above such as starting of the trial on 20.10.2010 and on that day examination of one witness and thereafter examination of the another witness on 7.12.2010 and then on the very next date i.e. on 8.12.2010 closing the entire case of prosecution resulting in acquittal of the accused persons. 6. In the opinion of this Court, this is an abuse of the authority and such error needs to be rectified by allowing the present application and giving an opportunity to the prosecution to lead whatever available evidence before the concerned trial Court. In the result, present application is allowed with following order : :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Revision Application No.253 of 2011 is allowed. [ii] The impugned order dated 8.12.2010 putting an end to the Sessions Case No.612 of 2007, is quashed and set aside. The said Sessions Case is restored to the file of the concerned Court and concerned Court should deal with the matter in accordance with law after allowing the 5 1.REVN.253-11 prosecution to lead the evidence by bringing the remaining witnesses. Directions are given to the concerned Sessions Court to issue notices to the accused persons, if they remained absent, when the matter shall be taken up for continuing with the trial. [iii] Criminal Revision Application is disposed of accordingly. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) PPD