THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusGOKUL GOTIRAM JADHAV

2026:BHC-AUG:21268

                                                                 926 CRI WP NO. 569 OF 2026



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 569 OF 2026
                                       The State Of Maharashtra
                                                VERSUS
                                         Gokul Gotiram Jadhav
                                                   …
                   •   Mr. A. S. Shinde, APP, for the Petitioner - State
                                                   …
                                                 CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
                                             DATED : 28.04.2026
            PER COURT :

            1.         The present petition is filed by the State of Maharashtra

            through Pahur Police Station, District Jalgaon, challenging the order

            dated 02.04.2026 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-2 and

            Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, whereby the application filed by

            the prosecution under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal

            Procedure, 1973 seeking permission to examine Chemical Analyser

            Mr. G. B. Khade as a prosecution witness came to be rejected.

            2.         Learned APP for the petitioner-State submits that the

            prosecution had earlier filed an application under Section 293(1) of

            the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking exhibition of the

            Chemical Analyser’s reports. After hearing the learned Prosecutor and

            the learned counsel for the accused, the learned Trial Court allowed

            the said application and exhibited the Chemical Analyser’s reports

            subject to objections raised by the defence.


            Jhs/                                                                     1/4
                                                      926 CRI WP NO. 569 OF 2026


3.     Learned APP further submits that in view of the objections

raised by the accused, it became necessary for the prosecution to

examine the concerned Chemical Analyser for formally proving the

reports already exhibited before the Trial Court. It is therefore

submitted that the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the

application filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 for examining the Chemical Analyser as a witness.

4.     The accused filed reply to application Exhibit-139 and strongly

opposed the same on the ground that the trial has already been made

time-bound pursuant to the directions issued by this Court and that

the matter was being listed twice a week for expeditious disposal. It

was further contended that the matter is presently fixed for recording

the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5.     It was also pointed out that the prosecution had already

examined its last witness i.e. PW-14 – the Investigating Officer, on

31.03.2026 and thereafter closed the prosecution evidence. Though

the Chemical Analyser’s reports were exhibited on the same date, the

prosecution did not seek examination of the Chemical Analyser

before closure of evidence. According to the accused, the present

application filed by the prosecution was only intended to prolong the

trial proceedings, which are already directed to be expedited by this

Jhs/                                                                      2/4
                                                         926 CRI WP NO. 569 OF 2026


Court. Hence, rejection of the application was sought.

6.     The learned Trial Court, after considering the application filed

by the prosecution as well as the objections raised by the accused,

rejected the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973. Learned APP submits that the impugned order

suffers from non-application of mind inasmuch as the learned Trial

Court failed to consider that examination of the Chemical Analyser

was necessary for proving the Chemical Analyser’s reports already

exhibited on record. It is therefore submitted that the impugned

order is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

7.     I have carefully gone through the impugned order dated

02.04.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court

has taken into consideration that the prosecution had already filed an

application on 31.01.2026 for exhibiting the Chemical Analyser’s

reports and the same were exhibited as Exhibits-135 and 136 after

allowing the said application.

8.     The learned Trial Court has rightly observed that in view of the

provisions of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,

the Chemical Analyser’s reports are admissible in evidence and can be

read in evidence without formal examination of the Chemical

Analyser. The reports being documents issued by a public servant in

discharge of official duties carry a statutory presumption with regard

Jhs/                                                                         3/4
                                                       926 CRI WP NO. 569 OF 2026


to their authenticity. Therefore, there was no absolute necessity for

the prosecution to examine the Chemical Analyser merely for proving

the contents of the reports already exhibited on record.

9.     The learned Trial Court has also taken into consideration the

stage of the trial and the fact that the prosecution evidence had

already been closed. The matter was thereafter fixed for recording

the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973. In such circumstances, the learned Trial

Court was justified in holding that no sufficient ground was made out

for exercising powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973.

10.    In my considered opinion, no error, illegality or perversity has

been committed by the learned Trial Court while rejecting the

application preferred by the prosecution. The petitioner-State has

failed to make out any case warranting interference by this Court in

exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

11.    The petition is devoid of merit and substance and is

accordingly rejected.


                                           ( MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. )




Jhs/                                                                       4/4