Bombay High Court
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The orders dated 04.10.2022 and 12.10.2022 are quashed, and the prosecution is permitted to examine the pending witnesses and produce documents.
Summary
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a criminal revision challenging two orders dated 04.10.2022 and 12.10.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, which rejected the CBI's application for witness summons and later closed the prosecution's evidence. The CBI argued that the prosecution still needed to examine four additional witnesses to prove its case and that the judge's orders were contradictory and made without applying the mind. The High Court examined the record and found that the prosecution's evidence had not been closed at the time of the first order and that the judge erred in denying the summons and subsequently closing the case. The Court held that the orders were passed in haste and were legally untenable. Consequently, the High Court quashed both orders, permitted the prosecution to examine the pending witnesses and produce documents, and directed that this be done as soon as possible. The revision application was allowed and disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the Additional Sessions Judge erred in rejecting the prosecution's application for issuance of witness summons.
- Whether the judge correctly closed the prosecution's evidence at the advanced stage of trial.
- Whether the orders were passed without applying the mind, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
Subjects
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Witness Summons
- Closure of Evidence
- Revision Jurisdiction
- Prosecution Rights
- Procedural Fairness
Judgment
2-REVN-451-2022 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 451 OF 2022
Central Bureau Of Investigation ...Applicant
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Digitally signed
SONALI SATISH
by SONALI
SATISH Date:
KILAJE
2026.09.29
KILAJE 17:34:42
Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, Special P.P. for Applicant.
+0530
Mr. S. M. Mangaonkar, APP for Respondent-State.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. The challenge in this application is to impugned orders dated
04.10.2022 and 12.10.2022 below Exhibit-368 and Exhibit- 370
respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.
2. It is contention of learned Special P.P. for the applicant that
prosecution wants to examine witnesses in support of their case, but the
learned Judge has observed that it would reopen the closed case causing
prejudice to defence. Learned Special P.P. further submitted that the
learned Judge has closed the prosecution’s evidence on the ground that
prosecution has already examined 39 witnesses. Learned Special P.P.
further submitted that prosecution be given an opportunity to prove its
case, and four more witnesses are required to be examined. The charges
Page 1 of 3
2-REVN-451-2022 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
against the accused are serious and requested to allow the application.
3. Though respondent Nos.2 to 6 are served, none present for
respondent Nos.2 to 6, hence I am deciding this application on merit.
4. It appears from the record that prosecution had filed
application dated 04.10.2022, praying for issuance of witness summons to
the witnesses. The learned Judge has rejected the said application by
passing order observing that, since the Investigating Officer has been
examined, now allowing the application would amount to reopening closed
case causing prejudice to defence and rejected the application. In my view,
evidence of the prosecution witnesses was not closed when the said order
was passed. The prosecution wanted to examine the witnesses in support
of their case. Though the case was at advance stage, the learned Judge
should have given opportunity to prosecution to prove its case. However,
learned Judge rejected the application, which is erroneous. It appears
from record that on 12.10.2022, learned Judge closed prosecution’s
evidence when an application for exhibiting the documents was filed,
stating that 39 witnesses have already been examined and for the
preceding 3-4 dates, prosecution had neither led evidence nor produced
any evidence. In my view, by earlier order dated 04.10.2022, the learned
Judge has rejected the application for issuance of witness summons and by
order dated 12.10.2022, the learned Judge has observed that prosecution
Page 2 of 3
2-REVN-451-2022 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
was not producing any witnesses. The observations of the learned Judge
are contradictory. The application for exhibiting of documents was also
rejected. This shows both the orders were passed without application of
mind and in haste. In view of above, I pass following order:
ORDER
(i) The impugned orders dated 04.10.2022 and 12.10.2022
passed below Exhibit-368 and Exhibit-370 by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, are quashed and set
aside.
(ii) The prosecution is permitted to examine witnesses
mentioned in the list and prove the documents as per the
procedure.
(iii) The prosecution shall examine the witnesses as early as
possible.
5. The Revision Application is allowed and disposed of. All
pending applications, if any, also disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.