1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2227 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ..Petitioner (Orig.Complainant) versus Yogesh Chandrashekhar Naidu ..Respondents (Orig. Accused) ===== Mr.S.N.Gawade, PP for State. Smt.Manjula Rao, Advocate for respondents. ===== CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 25 th SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1.By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge order rendered by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of 9 th Court Bandra, Mumbai, whereby, application for examination of two witnesses including husband of the informant i.e. Mangesh Sadashiv Kajrolkar and Investigating Officer- Mr.Popat Tivatane came to be rejected. 2.The respondent no.1 is facing prosecution before the leaned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9 th Court, Bandra, 2 Mumbai in C.C.No. 155/PW/2007 for offences punishable under the Protection of Civil Rights Act. 3.Heard the learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4.It is explicit that the husband of informant- PW-1 was not examined because she informed the Court that he was on tour. The trial is completed. The learned counsel for the respondent makes statement that the statement of the respondent has been recorded u/s.313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the arguments are also over. 5.I have considered the recorded police statement of Mangesh Kajrolkar, copy of which is placed on record. His statement would show that he was not at home when the alleged incident occurred. Statement prima facie shows that he came to know about the incident on basis of information received by him from his wife at about 22 hrs., when he returned home. Needless to say, his version is only of 3 hearsay nature He is not, therefore, significant from the stand point of the trial. It also appears that Mr. Popat Tivatane has not taken material steps during the investigation except to supervise and verify a part of the investigation and filing of the chargesheet. Considering these factual aspects, the examination of the said two witnesses, in my opinion, may not be essential and very important for the prosecution purpose. 6.The impugned order shows that the role of Investigating Officer, was not explained to the trial court except and save his act of verification in respect of the Caste Certificate of the informant. 7.Considering the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the petition. Hence, the Petition is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR, J.) 4