9. cr wp 1755-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1755 OF 2010 K. Chandrahas Shetty .. Petitioner Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr .. Respondents Mr. V.K. Gupta for the Petitioner Ms. Seema Rawade for Respondent No. 1-BMC Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 27th OCTOBER, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner-original accused, learned advocate for respondent no. 1-Corporation- original complainant and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner is an accused in C.C. No. 4101383/SS/ 2007 which is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 41st Court, Shindewadi, Dadar, Mumbai. The said case is under Section 394 of the M.M.C. Act. The prayer of the petitioner is that he be granted permission to recall PW 1. The prayer of the petitioner came to be rejected by the learned Magistrate, hence, this petition. 1 9. cr wp 1755-10.doc 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that after examination-in-chief of PW 1 was over, he was not even given ordinary copy of examination-in-chief and he was asked to cross-examine PW 1. As he did not have copies of examination-in-chief, it was not possible for him to cross- examine, hence he declined to cross-examine the witness, hence, the learned Magistrate instructed the accused to conduct the matter, however, he also denied to cross-examine the witness. 4. Thereafter, an application came to be preferred by the petitioner before the learned JMFC for recalling of witness and for copy of examination-in-chief of PW 1. However, the said application came to be rejected by order dated 16th December, 2009. While rejecting the said application, learned Magistrate observed that prior to commencement of evidence of PW 1 Jadhav, the learned defence counsel did not request the Court for issuance of ordinary copy of examination-in-chief and the defence counsel as well as the accused flatly refused to cross-examine the witness, hence, no case is made out for recalling PW 1. 5. As the petitioner has preferred the application for being provided with the copy of examination-in-chief of PW 1, in the interest of justice the same be provided to him by the 2 9. cr wp 1755-10.doc trial Court. The petitioner is also permitted to take inspection of the documents produced by PW 1. 6. The application of the petitioner for recalling PW 1 for the purpose of cross-examination is allowed. 7. Petition disposed of in above terms. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 3 9. cr wp 1755-10.doc 4