Bombay High Court

VADIVEL ANNAMALAI DEVENDRAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 29 September 2026
Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The Court held that the applicant’s claim of fresh material was unsubstantiated and therefore the trial court’s order rejecting the recall of the witness stands.

Summary

The applicant, an accused, filed a criminal application seeking the recall of the complainant's witness (C.W.1) on the ground that he had newly obtained the original registration certificate of the vehicle involved, which he alleged was suppressed by the complainant. The application was filed after the cross‑examination of the witness had concluded and was made at the stage of recording the accused’s statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. The trial magistrate rejected the application, finding that the registration certificate is publicly available online and that the applicant did not specify when he came into possession of it. On appeal, the High Court observed that the lack of a specific date of possession and the public availability of the document rendered the claim of fresh material untenable. Consequently, the Court found no merit in interfering with the trial court’s order. The writ petition was therefore dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant’s newly retrieved registration certificate constitutes fresh material sufficient to justify recalling the witness.
Whether the trial magistrate’s order rejecting the recall application is legally valid.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313

Subjects

witness recall
criminal procedure
registration certificate
evidence
appeal
dismissal

Judgment

                                                   916-APL-1735-2026.DOC




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
              CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1735 OF 2026


Vadivel Annamalai Devendra                            …Applicant
      Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                       …Respondents


Mr. Mohd. Munerul Shaikh, for the Applicant.
Mr. S. V. Walve, APP, for the Respondent-State.


                        CORAM:      MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                        DATED :     29th SEPTEMBER 2026
P. C.:


1.       Heard Mr. Shaikh, learned Counsel appearing for the

Applicant and Mr. Walve, learned APP appearing for the

Respondent-State.



2.       By this Criminal Application, the challenge is to the legality

and validity of the order dated 6th August 2026 passed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 56 th Court, Mazgaon,

Mumbai, below Exhibit-35 in C.C. No.3559/SC/2022. By the

impugned order, said application bearing Exhibit-35 filed by the

Applicant i.e. original accused to recall witness No.1 of the

Complainant i.e. C.W.1 was rejected.




                                  Page 1
Sonali
                                                   916-APL-1735-2026.DOC




3.       It is the submission of learned Counsel appearing for the

Applicant that the Applicant received certain information after the

conclusion of the cross-examination and therefore, the application

is filed. In the application, it is stated that the Applicant has

recently retrieved the original Registration Certificate of the vehicle

which stands in the name of the Applicant and certain

correspondence regarding the physical seizure and registration

status of the said taxi. It is further submitted that these facts were

suppressed by the Complainant in the main complaint as well as in

the examination in chief. The said application has been filed at the

stage of recording the statement of the Applicant under Section

313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.



4.       Perusal of the record shows that the affidavit of evidence has

been filed on 15th November 2022. P.W. 1 has been extensively

cross-examined on 23rd December 2025 and thereafter, further

cross-examination was conducted on 18 th February 2026 and the

cross-examination was completed. The present application has

been filed on 25th May 2026. The contention that the Applicant has

recently retrieved the original Registration Certificate of the vehicle




                                  Page 2
Sonali
                                                            916-APL-1735-2026.DOC




         is of no relevance as the Registration Certificate is publicly

         available online.



         5.       In any case, the learned Trial Court has specifically recorded

         that there is no specific date has been mentioned in the application

         as to when the accused came in possession of the said document.

         There is nothing on record to indicate that the said Registration

         Certificate has been retrieved by the present Applicant on any

         particular date.



         6.       Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, no case is made

         out for interference in the impugned order.



         7.       The Writ Petition is dismissed.




                                                     [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]


       Digitally
       signed by
       SONALI
SONALI MILIND
MILIND PATIL
PATIL Date:
       2026.09.30
       10:47:22
       +0530




                                           Page 3
         Sonali

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.