IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 436 OF 2009 Mr Arun Namdeo Sakat .. Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr A. M. Saraogi a/w Ms Seema Gupta, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr Amol A. Gatne, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Ms S.D. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. DATED : 4th April,2009. DATED : 4th April,2009. DATED : 4th April,2009. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the two courts i.e. learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kurla, Mumbai (the Trial Magistrate), dated 10.11.2008, in Case No. 1101/P/1998 and Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay dated 20.1.2009 in Criminal Revision Application No. 1317 of 2008. 2. What is, in fact, challenged in the present writ petition by the original accused is - the permission granted by the learned M.M.Court with which Criminal Case No.1101/P/1998 was pending, allowing the original complainant P.W.1 for his further examination on the additional material already brought before the trial Magistrate regarding some tape recorded conversation and panchnama of cassette by the complainant and transcription of tape recorded cassette of conversation between the complainant and the accused. 3. It appears that by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 311 of the Code, the impugned order came to be passed allowing further examination-in-chief and also for cross-examination on behalf of the accused. This was done when in fact P.W.1 complainant and P.W.Nos. 2 and 3 were examined and cross-examined. 4. On perusing the reasoning given by both the Trial as well as Revisional Courts and considering the provisions of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and considering the authority vested with this Court under the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., in the opinion of this Court, there is nothing to interfere with the said impugned order on further examination of the complainant (P.W.1). More so, when the opportunity can always be available to the accused to cross-examine the said witness on the additional material to be brought before the Magistrate. Needless to mention that mere giving additional evidence and production of certain documents cannot be construed as establishment of any particular circumstance as against the accused and the evidential value of such additional evidence is required to be ascertained by the Trial Magistrate. 5. In view of above with the following directions present criminal writ petition is disposed of. 6. Writ Petition No. 436 of 2009 stands dismissed. The impugned order shall sustain. The learned Trial Magistrate to proceed with the matter in accordance with the provisions of law and if the copies of the additional documents are not supplied to the accused, the same shall be supplied and thereafter matter may proceed as per the impugned order dated 10/11/2008. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that he petitioner-accused is under suspension for more than eleven years and he is facing the trial hence the Trial Magistrate shall take all the endeavours to expeditiously dispose of the pending matter. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.)