1 Cri.Appln.No.163 of 2011 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 163 OF 2011 Lalit Timothy D'souza ... Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Harshad Ponda i/by Junaid Shabwary and Rohit Sawant, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. More, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : AUGUST 22, 2011 P.C. In an on going trial, where the High Court directed the learned Sessions Judge to proceed on day today basis, the cross examination on behalf of the accused revolved to the purported controversy between the accused and his sister or witnesses. The question which were put to the witnesses and rejected by the learned Judge would appear in para 18 (PW 1 Page 16) dated 22.2.2011. This would illustrate that the questions were naturally relating to so called controversy between the witnesses and the accused. This would travel beyond the scope of criminal trial. 2 Cri.Appln.No.163 of 2011 The application at Exh. 52 amounts informing the court that it was in those circumstances without going with into individual averments made in the proceedings which shows the mind of the witness and Laura together with various admissions, the accused desired to ask questions and bring on record the relevant averments made in these proceedings. The proceedings are to the knowledge of the parties and the copies could be placed whenever it will be so advised as defence of the accused. However, for that purpose cross examination in the manner it has been carried, was rightly objected to by the learned Judge. The learned Judge has to control the proceedings, he has also to decide as to admissibility of evidence. I do not see any mistake in the order passed. Hence, application rejected. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)