1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.155/2009 Petitioner:- Lochanram Shivprasad Gupta, aged about 54 yrs., Occ. R.T.O. Agent R/o Plot No.28, Vrundawan Colony, Amravati Camp, Tq. & Distt. Amravati. ...Versus... Respondents:- 1. State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. of P.S. Gadgenagar, Amravati. 2. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Commissioner, Amravati. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Petitioner/applicant in person] [Shri A.D. Sonak, APP for respondents] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 10.02.2010 1. Since the applicant appears in person and is not able to conduct the matter as required, this Court allowed him to put up all facts and prayers though they have not been framed in the prayer clauses of the revision memo. 2. Having heard the applicant in person, it appears that he has following grievances. 3. That he had given list of eight witnesses for examining them as defence witnesses in Criminal Case No.223/2001, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Amravati, but the trial Court turned down his request. Second grievance which appears to be that he wanted transfer of the case from one Court to another and the learned Sessions Judge refused his request for transfer. 2 4. He states that he does not want to challenge the order refusing to transfer the case from one Court to another. 5. In so far as grievance regarding examination of witnesses is concerned, having heard the applicant in person I find that he is being prosecuted for not depositing the amount of premium to the Insurance Company allegedly recovered by him from the client. This being the charge, list of seven witnesses out of eight which he has narrated before me, becomes wholly irrelevant and none of the witnesses out of those seven need be called since they have no connection whatsoever with the charge sought to be proved against him by the prosecution. However, he wants to bring the Investigating Officer in his case in evidence before the trial Court and the name of the Investigating officer is Shri Vilas Ramsingh Thakur, Buckle No.405. This request appears to be reasonable since the applicant is entitled to examine the Investigating Officer if at all he wants to elicit his defence through him or as the case may be. Hence, the request made by the applicant for examining Shri Vilas Ramsingh Thakur, Investigating Officer is accepted and the trial Court shall now issue summons to Shri Vilas Ramsingh Thakur, Investigating Officer as defence witness, who shall be examined by the applicant in the said criminal case. Rest of the request made by the applicant for examining seven witnesses is rejected. 6. Criminal Revision Application is thus partly allowed in the above terms. Trial be completed within a period of six months from today. JUDGE SSW