1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application (APL) No. 383/2011 Shri. Sumant Bapuji Gedam V/s. State of Maharashtra through Dy.S.P. Anti Corruption Bureau, Chandrapur ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R. M. Daga h/f M. P. Khajanchi, Counsel for Applicant Mrs. K. R. Deshpande, APP for Respondent-State Coram: A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 11th August 2011 1. Heard Mr. R. M. Daga h/f Mr. M. P. Khajanchi, learned counsel for Applicant and Mrs. K. R. Deshpande, learned APP for Respondent-State. 2. By means of this Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 11th July 2011, passed below Exh. 77, by learned Special Judge, Chandrapur in Special [ACB] Case No. 3 of 1999. 3. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that due to clerical mistake the witnesse’s summons were issued to some other witnesses. The mistake was not committed by 2 the accused. The summons should have been sent to village Kitala instead of Village Koradi, Tq. Korpana, Dist. Chandrapur. However, by the impugned order, the learned Special Judge, rejected the application (Exh. 77), in the result, the applicant could not lead evidence which was essential for just decision of the case. The learned Special Judge on the ground, that the accused ought to have taken care to see that all the witnesses shall attend the Court with all proper documents, attributed failure on the part of the accused, while, unfortunately, it was clerical mistake in the matter of issuance of witnesse’s summons to wrong witnesses against whom witnesse’s summons was not prayed for by the defence. Considering the application made in the trial Court as also the impugned order, I think, in the interest of justice, the full opportunity ought to have been granted to the defence to lead evidence as may be chosen and essential for just decision of the case. According to learned Special Judge, if the accused was responsible for delay in disposal of the trial; costs could have been imposed on him instead of rejecting the application. Hence, the impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside with direction as follows. Directions: (i) The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause “[a]” in the instant application subject to 3 payment of cost in the sum of Rs. 500/- to be deposited in the trial Court. (ii) The impugned order is set aside. (iii) The defence shall make an appropriate application for issuance of summons giving particulars of the names and addresses of witnesses. (iv) Summons be issued accordingly. 4. Criminal Application is allowed accordingly. JUDGE Punde