Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusGAJALA RAM JADHAV
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The prosecution may examine the two relevant witnesses despite the closure of evidence, and the lower court’s order rejecting the application is quashed.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed a criminal revision seeking to examine two prosecution witnesses—one granting sanction and an arms dealer—under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a double murder case (IPC s.302) where charges were also framed under the Arms Act. The Additional Sessions Judge had rejected the application, holding that evidence was already closed. The High Court, after hearing counsel, found the witnesses to be relevant and held that the prosecution’s mistake in not examining them earlier did not bar their examination even at the argument stage. Consequently, the Court quashed the lower court’s order, allowed the application, and directed the prosecution to examine the two witnesses within one month. All pending applications were disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution may be permitted to examine additional witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. after evidence has been closed and at the stage of arguments.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 311, 313
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302
Subjects
- Criminal Procedure
- Section 311
- examination of witnesses
- evidence closure
- Arms Act
- double murder
- revision
Judgment
31-REVN-116-2025 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 116 OF 2025
The State Of Maharashtra ...Applicant
VERSUS
Gajala Ram Jadhav ...Respondent
_________________________________________________________________
Digitally signed
NILAM by NILAM
SANTOSH
SANTOSH KAMBLE Mr.S.M. Mangaonkar, APP, for the Applicant-State.
KAMBLE Date: 2026.09.24
18:51:11 +0530 Mr.Vinay Bhanushali a/w Mr.Pujan Patel, for the Respondent.
Mr.Raju Chavan, PI, Juhu Police Station.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C. :
. The challenge in this Application is to the order dated 5 th
December 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai,
below Exhibit-204, in Sessions Case No.983 of 2004, whereby the learned
Judge has rejected the Application to examine the prosecution witnesses
under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short).
2. It is contention of the learned APP that allegations in the
prosecution’s case are about double murder. Two FIRs are filed under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) and prosecution
wants to examine the witness granting sanction and the dealer of arms, as
charge was framed under the Arms Act. But this fact has not been
Page 1 of 3
31-REVN-116-2025 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
considered by the learned Sessions Judge and has passed impugned order,
which is erroneous and requested to allow the Application.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Respondent that the
prosecution has closed its evidence. The statement of the accused under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded and matter is posted for the arguments.
When the matter was posted for arguments, Application was filed by the
prosecution without reasonable ground and no explanation was given as to
why no witnesses was examined earlier. The trial is going on since 2004
and evidence was closed in the year 2015. The learned Sessions Judge has
passed well reasoned order, no interference is required in it and requested
to reject the Application.
4. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned order
and documents produced on record.
5. Admittedly, both FIR’s are registered against the Respondent
and other Accused under Section 302 of IPC. The charges against both
accused are framed under the Arms Act. The prosecution wants to
examine witnesses regarding sanction and dealer of arms.
6. In my view, these witnesses are relevant witnesses. The mistake
of the concerned APP cannot be a ground to deny the prosecution to
examine the witnesses in support of case though the matter is at the stage
of arguments. If prosecution is directed to examine the witness within a
Page 2 of 3
31-REVN-116-2025 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
span of one month, it would suffice and I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Application is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 5th December 2024
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai,
below Exhibit-204, in Sessions Case No.983 of 2004 is
quashed and set aside.
(iii) The prosecution shall examine two witnesses within
one month, after receipt of this order.
(iv) All pending Applications are disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…