[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN.APPLN.NO.612 OF 2008 Sarvarali Gulamali Choudhary ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondents ... Mr.Nandkumar V.Sawant advocate for applicant Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : DECEMBER 4, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 4, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 4, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is facing prosecution in Sessions Case No.284 of 2006. The said case is mainly under Section 376 of IPC. P.W. 3 Ayesha is the prosecutrix in the said matter. The contention of the applicant is that there was love affair between the applicant and the prosecutrix and thereafter on 13.7.2007 they got married. However, when the prosecutrix was last in the witness-box on 3.3.2007, the questions relating to the marriage of the applicant and the prosecutrix could not be put [-2-] to her. Hence, an application dated 18.9.2008 for recalling the prosecutrix came to be filed. The said application came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 11.11.2008. 3. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice, I am of the opinion that the applicant ought to be given an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecutrix. Hence, the order dated 11.11.2008 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No.284 of 2006 is set aside. Application for recalling the prosecutrix is allowed. 4. Application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]