(1) CRI. WP1100.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1100 OF 2010 1. Sunil S/o Minanath Kalwaghe, Age : 34 years, Occu.: Agri., 2. Rajendra S/o Minanath Kalwaghe, Age : 36 years, Occu.: Agri., Both R/o. Singve, Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar Petitioners (Orig. Accused nos.1 and 5) VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Respondent ..... Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.V. Tele, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State. ..... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 23RD DECEMBER, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission in order dispose of the Petition since the question involved is rather short one. 2. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. (2) CRI. WP1100.2010 3. It appears that P.W.1-Raosaheb Bansode was examined by the prosecution in Sessions case no. 3 of 2010. He admitted that he had issued a letter demanding the amount of Rs.80,000/- from accused Sunil. He also admitted that the writing in the letter and the signature shown to him was similar. The petitioners therefore applied to exhibit the relevant letter which was confronted to the witness. The learned Sessions Judge, Kopargaon vide impugned order dated 2.12.2010 rejected the Application on the ground that the admissions were "truncated" and, therefore, the document could not be read in evidence. 4. Perusal of the statement of P.W. Raosaheb does not reveal any observation of the Sessions Judge regarding the failure of the witness to understand the import of the question put to him during the cross-examination nor he had taken any note of the demeanour of the witness. Without there being any foundation to assume that the admissions were given by the witness, without he being able to understand the import of the question put to him, it was (3) CRI. WP1100.2010 improper for the learned Sessions Judge to assume that the admissions were truncated. The impugned order suffers from vice of arbitrariness and perversity. 5. In the result, the Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The Sessions Judge is directed to admit the document which was confronted to the witness (P.W.1) about which the admissions have been recorded. Rule made absolute accordingly. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp