Bombay High Court

Nitin Shahaji PatilversusThe State of Maharashtra

Decided: 28 August 2026
Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The appellate court correctly exercised its power under Section 391 of the CrPC to order the issuance of a witness summons, and the revision application is dismissed.

Summary

The applicant, Nitin Shahaji Patil, challenged a judgment allowing the prosecution to issue a witness summons to the Secretary of the Latur Education Board to prove a mark‑sheet (Exhibit‑30) that was central to his conviction for falsifying his Xth board examination results. The applicant argued that the summons application had previously been rejected in 2017, that allowing it after a 15‑year delay would fill a lacuna in the prosecution case, and that it violated principles of fair trial. The High Court noted that the Sessions Judge had acted on the directions of this Court, which had earlier set aside a remand order and directed the prosecution to examine the witness under Section 391 of the CrPC. The Court held that the appellate court is empowered to take additional evidence when necessary and that the earlier rejection of the application was not based on any reasonable ground. Consequently, the Court found no infirmity in the Sessions Judge’s order and dismissed the revision application.

Issues considered

Whether the Sessions Judge could validly allow a witness summons under Section 391 of the CrPC after an earlier rejection of the same application.
Whether permitting the summons after a 15‑year delay amounts to filling a lacuna in the prosecution case and violates the right to a fair trial.
Whether the appellate court has the authority to take additional evidence in a revision proceeding pursuant to Section 391 of the CrPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 391

Subjects

criminal revision
witness summons
Section 391 CrPC
additional evidence
lacuna in prosecution case
conviction
mark sheet examination
appellate court powers

Judgment

21-REVN-158-2025 (CR).doc

Tikam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 158 OF 2025

Nitin Shahaji Patil ...Applicant/s
VAISHALI Versus
ANIL The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent/s
TIKAM ________________________________________________________________
Digitally signed
by VAISHALI Mr. Anant Devakare a/w. Shubham Sudam Sane h/f. Mr. Priyal Sarda,
ANIL TIKAM
Date:
Advocate for Applicant.
2026.09.09
17:19:55 +0530 Ms. R.D. Humane, APP for Respondent-State.
PSI Anand Aware, Swargate Police Station, Pune City present.
_________________________________________________________________

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 28th AUGUST, 2026.
P.C. :

1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for

the State.

2. The challenge in this Revision Application is to the impugned

Judgment & Order dated 5th March 2025, passed below Exh. 24 whereby

the Learned Principal and District Sessions Judge, Pune allowed the

application filed by the prosecution for issuance of witness summons to the

Secretary, Latur Education Board.

3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that the

Applicant was convicted by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

(Motor Vehicle Court) Pune. The said Judgment & Order was challenged

before the Learned Sessions Judge, Pune. The Learned Sessions Judge

remanded the matter to Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, for

Page 1 of 6
21-REVN-158-2025 (CR).doc

Tikam

fresh hearing. Thereafter, the said order was challenged in Revision

Application by the Applicant before this Court. This Court [Coram: Shri

S.M. Modak, J.] quashed and set aside the remand order and directed the

Learned Sessions Judge to hear the appeal on merit. After remanding the

appeal to the Learned Sessions Judge, the prosecution filed an application

below Exhibit 24 for issuance of witness summons to the Secretary,

Education Board, Latur. The Learned counsel further submitted that the

similar application was filed before Learned JMFC in the year 2017 and the

said application was rejected. The said order was not challenged.

Thereafter, the Applicant was convicted. When the earlier application for

issuance of summons was already rejected on the ground of filling up the

lacuna, the same application could not have been filed by the prosecution

and should not have been allowed by the Learned Sessions Judge.

However, the said application was allowed. It would amount to fill up the

lacuna in prosecution case. The order passed by the Learned Sessions

Judge is erroneous and, therefore, requested to allow the application. It is

further contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that the

application has been allowed after 15 years from the registration of the

case. He relied upon the following judgments.

(i) Rahvinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana1;
(ii) Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.2;
1 (2016) 14 Supreme Court Cases 671
2 (2024) 4 Supreme Court Cases 453

Page 2 of 6
21-REVN-158-2025 (CR).doc

Tikam

(iii) Sri J. Ramesh S/o. Late Gopalachar And M/s. Lakshmi Precious
Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.3

4, It is contention of learned APP that allegations against the

Applicant are that he changed the mark sheet of his Xth Board Examination

and secured job at MSRTC. The Applicant was convicted by the Learned

JMFC, Pune. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred against the said

impugned Judgment & Order before the Learned Sessions Judge. After

hearing both the parties, the Learned Sessions Judge remanded the matter

to JMFC for fresh hearing as the concerned witness was not examined to

prove Exhibit 30 i.e. mark sheet of the Applicant. Learned APP further

submitted that the remand order was challenged before this Court. This

Court quashed and set aside the remand order and directed the Appellate

Court to go through the record and hear the parties on the point of any

attempt made to examine the witness to prove Exhibit-30. On the basis of

the observations of this Court, the prosecution filed an application to

examine the witness to prove Exhibit-30. The order passed by the Learned

Sessions Judge is well reasoned. No interference is required in it and,

therefore, requested to reject the Application.

5. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned

Judgment & Order. While allowing the application filed by the

prosecution for issuance of witness summons to the Secretary, Latur
3 In Criminal Petition No. 12045 of 2024 dated 07/03/2025.

Page 3 of 6
21-REVN-158-2025 (CR).doc

Tikam

Education Board, relating to the mark sheet of the applicant. The Learned

Sessions Judge observed that the original mark sheet was exhibited and

Applicant had not objected to the exhibit of the said document and

prosecution thought that the document was proved. The Learned Sessions

Judge further observed that Exhibit -30 is an important and relevant

document, therefore, to prove the contens of said documents through the

concerned person of Latur Eduction Board was necessary. Learned Judge

further observed that the entire case depends on Exhibit -30. The Trial

Court should have given the opportunity to the prosecution to prove the

Exhibit -30 when the application (Exhibit -56 )was filed by the learned APP

before the Learned Trial Court prior to the judgment. That opportunity was

denied by the learned Trial Court to prove the said document and

remanded matter to Learned JMFC. Thereafter, this Court, while setting

aside the remand order observed that the Appellate Court is at liberty to

exercise necessary power if it deems proper as per the settled law.

Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, empowers the

Appellate Court to take additional evidence in appropriate case. The

examination of concerned witness under Section 391 of the Cr.PC is

necessary to decide the appeal on merits. On the basis of observations of

this Court, the Learned Sessions Judge has allowed the application for

issuance of witness summons.

Page 4 of 6
21-REVN-158-2025 (CR).doc

Tikam

6. I do not find infirmity in the observations of the Learned

Sessions Judge, as the application was allowed as per the observations and

directions of this Court. Moreover, by examining the concerned witness, no

prejudice would be caused to the Revision Applicant as he will get

opportunity to cross examine the witness. As regards to the contention of

learned counsel for the Applicant that allowing the application would

amount to filling up lacuna in prosecution case. In my view, it is not for

first time the application was filed to examine the witness by the Latur

Education Board. It was already filed before the Trial Court, but the Trial

Court without considering the merit of the case, rejected the said

application without giving any reasonable ground. Thereafter, case

proceeded and applicant was convicted. The said Judgment & Order was

challenged before the Sessions Court and Learned Sessions Judge

remanded the matter to the trial court. The said remand order was

challenged before this Court. While setting aside the remand order, this

Court directed the prosecution to examine witness to prove Exhibit -30. It

shows that as per the observations of this Court, the impugned order is

passed. The order of this Court was not challenged by the Revision

Applicant. I have gone through the case laws cited by learned counsel for

Revision Applicant. The facts of cited cases and present case are different

as the impugned order is passed as per observations and directions of this

Page 5 of 6
21-REVN-158-2025 (CR).doc

Tikam

Court, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and I pass

following order:

Criminal Revision Application is rejected.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Page 6 of 6

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…