WP.2561-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 2561 OF 2010 Ramesh Chaturdas Sheth ...Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents *** Mr. S. L. Prabhu, for the Petitioner. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the Respondent-State. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 3, 2010 P.C. 1. Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board. 2. By this petition the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the trial Court dated 11-8-2010 whereby the trial Court was pleased to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner, seeking correction of the oral evidence, deposed by the prosecutrix on 21-7-2010. In the said application it was urged that in paragraph 7, the prosecutrix had deposed “I think accused tried to remove my sari”. It was submitted that the word WP.2561-10 - 2 - “I think” has been omitted while recording the evidence. It was therefore, urged that the record should be amended. The trial Court had passed a detailed order and has observed that it is mentioned in the evidence as under- “she felt that the accused was trying to remove her sari” It was therefore, observed that “the evidence was correctly recorded as it was deposed”. I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The trial Court has used the word “felt” in place of word “think”. Practically this word conveys more or less same meaning. Hence, there is no substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed in limini. 3. However, the trial of the Sessions Case is expedited. The trial Court shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months. [ V. M. KANADE J.]