Ladda 1 revn-568-10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.568 of 2010. Mangal Ramsuraj Chauhan ...Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. ...... Shri Prashant Gurav, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs S.D. Shinde, A.P.P.for the State. CORAM: A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED:- 28th March 2011. P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this application for setting aside the order passed by the Sessions Court, whereby the request for recalling of some of the prosecution witnesses has been rejected. 2. Facts of the present matter are of rather peculiar in nature. According to the applicant, who is presently in jail and facing charge for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, engaged one lawyer Smt. Sharda Patil to represent him in Sessions Case No. 68 of 2009 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai, Ladda 2 revn-568-10.doc District Thane. According to the applicant – accused, he had engaged only Advocate Smt Sharda Patil and none else. However, Vakalatnama which is at Exh.16 annexed to the present petition shows the name of two Advocates, Shri Yogesh Raut and Smt Sharda Patil. Said Vakalatnama is signed by the accused (present applicant) and it is dated 16th April, 2010. Subsequently, during the pendency of the matter and after P.W.No.1 was examined and cross-examined by Advocate Smt Sharda Patil, she preferred an application for withdrawal from the defence. Said application was allowed on 14th September, 2010. Thereafter, other witnesses were examined i.e. from PW. Nos. 2 to 4. Cross-examination of P.W. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 was asked to be done to the present applicant who was then brought from jail. However, he declined to cross-examine. Thereafter, on 6th October, 2010 P.W. Nos. 5 and 6 were examined in chief and their cross-examination was conducted by one Advocate, by name Mr Yogesh Raut. Thereafter, on 21st October, 2010 the same Advocate Mr Yogesh Raut cross-examined P.W.No.7. Thereafter, on 8th November, 2010 Advocate Shri Prashant Gurav ( who is representing the applicant in this revision application) filed Vakalatnama. On said Vakalatnama, no objection from Advocate Smt Sharda Patil was obtained and it was filed in the Court on the same day. Thereafter, on the same day an application was preferred before the Ladda 3 revn-568-10.doc learned Additional Sessions Judge for recalling of all the prosecution witnesses then examined as P.W.Nos. 1 to 7. After obtaining the say of the learned A.P.P. the impugned order was passed on 4th December, 2010 by which recalling of only P.W. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 was allowed and prayer for recalling of P.W. Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7 was rejected. This is the order under challenge by the applicant through the present Advocate Shri Gurav. 3. It is clearly conceded by the present Advocate Shri Gurav that the present applicant ( accused) had never made any grievance before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that he had not engaged the services of Advocate Shri Yogesh Raut. It is also stated that in the application made by the newly appointed Advocate Shri Prashant Gurav asking for recalling of P.Ws. Nos. 1 to 7, no such allegations were made. On the contrary, paragraph No.5 of the said application which is annexed to the present application, it is specifically mentioned as under: “The applicant further submits that thereafter he engaged Advocate Yogesh Raut to defend him and the said Advocate remained present during depositions of P.W. No.5, P.W. No.6 and P.W. No.7 and even cross-examined the witnesses”. 4. Now, in view of such specific plea taken on behalf of the applicant, now it cannot lie in the mouth of the applicant to state that Ladda 4 revn-568-10.doc he had not intimated Advocate Shri Yogesh Raut to defend him. 5. Considering the above circumstances and considering that Advocate Shri Yogesh Raut had cross-examined P.W. Nos. 5, 6 and 7, learned Additional Sessions Judge had rightly not allowed the application for recalling of the said witnesses. Needless to mention that the prayer for recalling of P.W. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 was rightly allowed and justly so because during that period after the examination-in-chief of P.W. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 Advocate on record was not representing the accused-applicant and the accused was asked to cross-examine. However, the accused declined to cross-examine and considering such factual position recalling of P.W. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 was allowed. In that view of the matter, there is nothing to allow the present application as it is apparently dilatory tactics adopted by the present applicant as suggested on behalf of the State. In the result, present application stands rejected. (A.R.JOSHI, J.)