1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 434/2011 (Annapurnabai Shyamrao Kohchade vs. State of Maharashtra and others ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. R D Bhuibhar, Advocate for petitioner Mr A.S.Sonare, APP fort Respondent no.1 Mr. J B Kasat,Adv.for Respondents 2 and 3 CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J. DATED : 21st November, 2011. Heard respective counsel, at length. By means of this petition, the petitioner prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction, with prayer to quash and set aside the impugned judgment dated 11.7.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Criminal Revision No.33/2010. My attention has been invited to the amended Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in which proviso to section 202 (2) made it mandatory for the learned Magistrate concerned to call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. Considering that the learned Additional Sessions Judge who made reference to amended provisions of Sec. 202 of Cr.P.C. and its mandatory nature requiring the Magistrate to record statements of 2 witnesses of the complainant on oath, was pleased to set aside the order passed by the Magistrate on 19.5.2010 in Regular Criminal Complaint Case No.152/2009 whereby the process was issued against accused for offences punishable under sections 294, 447, 379 read with section 34 IPC; as also for offences punishable under section 3 (1)(2), sub-sections (x) (xi) (iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Admittedly, the offences complained of were triable by Court of Sessions. Under these circumstances, the learned Magistrate concerned was required to call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath in the light of Section 202(2) Cr.P.C. For this reason no interference is required in the impugned judgment and order passed on 11.7.2011 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Criminal Revision Nos.33/2010 & 34/2010, for the reason that the complainant is at liberty to examine himself on oath and also summon all his witness in the proceeding which is pending. Petition is dismissed. Needless to mention that the learned Magistrate concerned will apply his mind afresh on the basis of evidence led before him and decide the complaint according to law and procedure applicable in this regard. JUDGE sahare