JUDGMENT - MOHITE R.S., J.:---Rule. By consent Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. This is an application made by the State of Maharashtra seeking to quash and set aside an order dated 25-6-2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Ramtek in Criminal Case No. 895/98 and Criminal Complaint Case No. 244/2001 and for a direction that prosecution witness No. 1 Ramesh Jaiswal be recalled and that the prosecution be permitted to put questions in the nature of cross-examination in order to secure the ends of justice.

3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the four accused in both the complaints which are being tried before the J.M.F.C. Ramtek. Criminal Case No. 895/98 is a police case arising out of a charge-sheet filed by Police Station, Ramtek, whereas Criminal Complaint Case No. 244/2001 is a private complaint filed by the forest department through Assistant Wild Life Warden, Ramtek. It is not in dispute that both these cases are being clubbed and are being tried together as a police case and common evidence is being led in both these cases. It is also an admitted position that Advocate Shri M.P. Badar who appears for the petitioner in this application is prosecuting both the complaints.

4. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 who are the accused are charged for committing offence under sections 9, 39, 48-A of the Wild Life Protection Act, under sections 3, 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and under section 429 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case pertains to the alleged shooting of wild black buck by the accused on 19-4-1998. The evidence of the prosecution in the case commenced on 7-5-2002 when prosecution witness No. 1 Ramesh Madhavprasad Jaiswal who is Police Patil of the village Kachurwahi was put into the witness box. The examination-in-chief concluded on 27-5-2002 and on this date the cross-examination commenced. At the end of the day further cross-examination was deferred to 29-5-2002, on which day it was completed in the evening. The certified copy of the evidence of this witness indicates that after the completion of the cross-examination, an endorsement was made by the J.M.F.C. indicating that prosecution had declined re-examination.

5. On 13-6-2002, an application came to be made on behalf of the prosecution in the cases seeking the recall of prosecution witness No. 1 Shri Ramesh Jaiswal for re-examination and if necessary to declare P.W. 1 hostile and also put the questions as are permissible under sections 154 and 155 of the Evidence Act. The contention of the prosecution in this application was that this witness had concealed or suppressed certain material facts in his examination-in-chief. In this connection it was mentioned that the witness had concealed the fact that after the incident, on 21-4-98, the elder brother of accused No. 3 Jambhulkar alongwith with upsarpanch of village Hathodi and elder son of accused No. 4 Shri Baghele had brought one paper on which it was written that they had missed the way and on the way one person having a black buck tied to the bicycle and with a gun was coming and he put up the deer and cycle near the jeep and ran away. It was contended in the application that these facts were stated in the statement recorded by the Forest Officers on 26-4-98 but were concealed by the witness. Similarly it was contended in this application that extra judicial confession purported to be made by accused No. 4 Baghele on 27-4-98 to one Abdul Salam, R.F.O. which found reference in the statement recorded by the forest officer on 27-4-98 was also suppressed by this witness.

6. It is further contended that in the cross-examination this witness has stated that his statements were recorded by the forest officer on 21-4-98, 26-4-98 and 27-4-98. When, in fact the forest officer had recorded the statement of this witness only once i.e. on 27-4-98. It was lastly contended that there were other discrepancies in the examination-in-chief and cross-examination, e.g. this witness had stated in his cross-examination that at th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document