Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusNIRAJ VIJAY SONAWANE
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The revision is allowed; the order closing evidence is quashed and the prosecution is permitted to examine the remaining witnesses.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed a criminal revision challenging the Special Judge’s order that rejected the prosecution’s request to set aside the closure of evidence and to examine seven additional witnesses in a POCSO case. The prosecution had examined only two witnesses before the evidence was closed and the matter was posted for the accused’s statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court held that the Special Judge had not given the prosecution a sufficient opportunity to prove its case under the POCSO Act. Consequently, the revision was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the prosecution was directed to examine the remaining witnesses promptly. The court emphasized that the prosecution must not unduly delay the trial.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate scope of a trial court’s discretion to close evidence when the prosecution has not examined all its witnesses in a POCSO case?
- Whether the Special Judge’s order denying the prosecution’s application to set aside the evidence‑closure order is legally valid.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- revision
- evidence closure
- prosecution witnesses
- POCSO Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 313
- appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
25-REVN-152-2025 (CR).doc
Tikam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 152 OF 2025
The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant/s
Versus
VAISHALI Niraj Vijay Sonawane ...Respondent/s
ANIL
TIKAM
_________________________________________________________________
Digitally signed
by VAISHALI Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for Applicant.
ANIL TIKAM
Date:
2026.08.28 None for Respondent-State
10:05:24 +0530
PSI Swapnil Londhe, Kurla Police Station, Mumbai.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 21st AUGUST, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned APP for the Applicant.
2. The challenge in this revision application is the order passed
below Exhibit 28 by the Learned Special Judge, Greater Mumbai whereby
the Learned Judge has rejected the application filed by the prosecution to
set aside the order and allow the prosecution to examine seven witnesses.
3. It is contention of learned APP that the prosecution examined
two witnesses in support of their case and thereafter the prosecution could
not examine the other witnesses. The Learned Judge has closed evidence
and matter is posted for recording the statement of Respondent No.1/
Accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short
Page 1 of 3
25-REVN-152-2025 (CR).doc
Tikam
'Cr.P.C.'). Thereafter, the prosecution filed application for setting aside the
evidence closed order. But Learned Judge has rejected the said
application without any reasonable reason and requested to allow the
application.
4. Though Respondent served, none present for Respondent. I
have heard learned APP for the State. Perused the impugned order. The
charges against Respondent are framed under the provisions of POCSO
Act. It appears that after examination of two witnesses, the prosecution
could not examine other witnesses. Hence, prosecution evidence was
closed by the Learned Special Judge and matter was posted for recording
statement of respondent No.1 Accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
Thereafter, prosecution filed application to set aside the evidence close
order and allow them to examine seven witnesses in support of their case.
But the Learned Judge has rejected the said application on the ground that
sufficient opportunity was given to the prosecution and matter is posted
for statement of under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In my view, the charges
leveled against Accused No.1 are under the provisions of POCSO Act, it is
necessary to give opportunity to the prosecution to prove their case but the
Learned Judge has not considered this fact and I pass following order:
ORDER
(i) Revision Application is allowed.
Page 2 of 3
25-REVN-152-2025 (CR).doc
Tikam
(ii) The impugned order dated 05/02/2025 passed by the Learned
Special Judge (P.O.C. Act), Greater Bombay in Special Case No. 547 of
2020 is quashed and set aside. The prosecution is permitted to examine
the witnesses in support of their case.
(iii) Prosecution shall not prolong the matter and examine the
witnesses as early as possible.
Criminal Revision Application is disposed of accordingly.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…