1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 2163 OF 2009 Ulka Rajesh Gaonkar ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr. Indrajeet Joshi i/by Mr. A.M. Adagule for the Petitioner Mr. D.P. Adsule, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 P.C.:- Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. This petition can be disposed of at this stage. 2. The petitioner, who is an Assistant Public Prosecutor, has filed this petition seeking expunging of remarks made by the learned Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg, in Sessions Case No. 4 2 of 2008 against her. The following are the observations made by the learned Judge:- “33. Although DW 3 Shreyata did not support the prosecution on the point of insanity of the accused, however, she gave stunning deposition. She stated on oath that when she came in the Court on 23rd March, 2009 for giving evidence, she was taken to the office of Assistant Government Pleader, who made inquiries with her about the present accused and further told her what evidence she should give. She also told this to other defence witness Vishwas Sakpal who was also with her. Mr. S.D. Patil defence advocate brought this fact in the evidence of DW 3. Mrs. U.R. Gaonkar unnecessarily cross-examined the witness and questioned whether the witness knew the name of the Govt. Pleader to whom she was taken. Witness answered and it was quite natural that she was not aware of the name of Govt. Pleader. Defence Advocate Mr. S.D. Patil then in Re-cross-examination brought on record that A.P.P. Gaonkar is the same Assistant Government Pleader, before whom she was produced by Hawaldar. I must record my dissatisfaction about the manner in which the Learned A.P.P. Mrs. U.R. Gaonkar has dealt with and tried to tamper with the defence witnesses. This conduct of A.P.P. Mrs.Gaonkar is surprising and I deprecate the same. The copy of this judgment deserves to be sent to Law and Judiciary Department for appropriate action.” 3. We have seen the statement of the witness, i.e., Defence Witness No. 3. Nowhere the witness has stated that she was tutored or tried to be influenced by 3 Assistant Public Prosecutor. She merely stated that the police constable accompanying her had taken her to the Government Pleader’s Office where the Government Pleader had enquired with her about the case. 4. In view of the statement made by the witness in which she had not stated anything against the Assistant Public Prosecutor, the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge were without any basis. Therefore, the petition is allowed, and the remarks made in paragraph 33 of the judgment are expunged. BILAL NAZKI, J. A.R. JOSHI, J.