1 WP 2983/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2983 OF 2010 Madanlal Roopchand Gandhi .... Petitioner vs. Narayan Choturam @ Chotulal .... Respondents Sharma & ors. Ms. Anulata h/f Ms. Gauri Godse, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.S. Patil, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 6 Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 23rd December 2010 PC : 1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 5th August 2009 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge on the application at Exhibit 114 in the Sessions Case No.124 of 2004. The application is opposed by the respondents, who are accused persons in the Sessions Case as also by the State, respondent no.7. 2. The petitioner filed Criminal Case No.37 of 2000 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alibag against respondents no.1 to 6 under Sections 504, 506, 390, 391, 379, 425, 395 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. By the order dated 26th July 2000, process was issued against these respondents and by the order dated 1st September 2004; the case came to be committed to the Court of 2 WP 2983/2010 Sessions. During the course of his evidence, the petitioner produced a video cassette, which according to the petitioner recorded the entire incident alleged by him in the complaint. The Sessions Court had appointed a Commissioner to view the video cassette and to report it’s contents. Accordingly the video cassette was seen by the Commissioner who submitted his report dated 21st July 2009 to the Court. The report states that for the first 5 to 10 minutes, nothing was seen in the video film. Thereafter the picture was not clear and there were trackings seen in the film. Consequently, it was impossible to identify either the persons seen in the video film or their acts. However, the Commissioner could hear some sound of banging for the first incident alleged. For the second incident alleged, the only thing that could be seen was 4 or 5 persons demolishing some houses. Neither the houses nor the persons could be identified. Therefore, the petitioner made the application at Exhibit 114 to the Court claiming that the visibility of the video cassette was bad on account of the fungus on the video film. He prayed that arrangements to remove the fungus may be made and the directions be given to the Commissioner to view the cassette again and submit his report. The petitioner had claimed that when the respondents were committing the offence of robbery, he had video filmed the entire incident. The trial Court rejected the application stating that the report shows that it is difficult to 3 WP 2983/2010 remove the fungus and that it will also amount to tampering with the evidence. 3. The report made by the Commissioner is very clear. It actually indicates bad filming and not effect of any fungus on the film because as per the report at no place in the video film, any clarity is to be seen. In these circumstances, it is patent that no useful purpose would be served by giving any directions as regards cleaning of the fungus on the video cassette. In the circumstance, the application is dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)