1 Cri.Appln.265-273-274-275.11 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 265 OF 2011 Savitri @ Sumitra Siddappa Gouda ... Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 273 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 274 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 275 OF 2011 Mr. Mahesh Kotian with Mr. Ramesh Siroy i/by Mr. Ravi S. Kotian, Advocate for applicants. Mr. S.S. Pednekar, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 P.C. Heard. 2. Rejection of the application to recall three prosecution witnesses in four cases by common order is questioned by the accused. Several facts are highlighted by the learned counsel taking to the history of litigation, controversial conduct of the complainant, his habit of taking certain group of persons to haul. The fact remains that the applicant as 2 Cri.Appln.265-273-274-275.11 accused desired to confront investigator and also complainant with certain set of correspondence which indeed is against the conduct of the complainant claiming himself to be whistle blower or to influence the investigating agencies. 3. I quite see that this matter is dragged since the year 2008 and it was remanded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, Seweree on 15.12.2010, the learned Judge seized of the matter shall recall three witnesses i.e. PW 1, 2 and 3: This court has not expressed any opinion about the conduct of either PW 1., 2 or 3. It is for the learned Judge to independently decide the same. The applications moved before the learned Judge are allowed and order of rejection dated 11.3.2011 is set aside. In addition the applicants in each of the case shall pay Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant (PW 1). On such deposit of Rs. 1,000/- in each case, witness summons be issued. The parties to appear before the learned Judge on 1.10.2011 as scheduled. Applications are allowed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)