1 WP.847-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.847 OF 2011 Inden @ Moiddin Sayyedali Shaikh. .. Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. .... Mr.Amin Solkar, Advocate a/w. Mr.Yakub Shaikh, Advocate i/b. Mr.Husen Shaikh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.J.P. Kharge, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A. R. JOSHI, J. DATED : 28th MARCH, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 2. Heard rival submissions on this Criminal Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan dated 14 th February, 2011 rejecting the prayer of the applicant/accused No.12. By the application below Exh.434 in Sessions Case No.46 of 2003, initially application was filed by accused No.2 and accused Nos.11 to 14 for issuance of summons against the listed witness Nos.1 to 6 for calling them as defence 2 WP.847-11 witnesses in order to subserve the cause of justice. Said application was objected by the prosecution. Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan gave reasoning in para No.6 of the said order which is impugned. In the reasoning, it is mentioned that it is for the prosecution to examine its witnesses and if such witnesses though relied on by the prosecution and not examined, adverse inference can be drawn in favour of the accused. 3. On this aspect, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that now the petitioner restricts his prayer only for calling witness No.3 PSI Shri J.Y. Bhaskar, SHO of Ambernath Police Station who was on duty on 8.11.2002 at 19:20 hours. 4. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that said SHO Shri Bhaskar has recorded the FIR and other documents and his evidence before the Court is of much importance so as to bring out the contradictions and omissions from the version of the first informant. 5. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to allow the present Writ Petition partly and the order impugned and which is dated 14.2.2011 is quashed and set aside to the extent as to 3 WP.847-11 rejection of application for said witness No.3 mentioned above. Said witness No.3 be allowed to be recalled as a defence witness and necessary direction shall be given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to that effect. Rule is made partly absolute accordingly. Petition stands disposed of. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) PPD