JUDGMENT - SHAH S.K., J.:---Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

These writ petitions are filed by the accused persons involved in the same case and they are impugning the same order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa. Therefore, both these writ petitions are decided by common order.

2.By order dated 18th April, 2002, the learned Sessions Judge, Dadra Nagar Haveli, Silvassa, passed below Exhibit 107 in Sessions Case No. 29 of 1997, allowed the prosecution to recall the four witnesses, being P.W. 2 Jayeshkumar Naginbhai Patel, P.W. 5-Ishwar Lakhma Vangad, P.W. 7-Kakad Radka Kurkutia and P.W. 8 - Ladak Jania Mishal and examined them again. These witnesses were previously examined and they had turned hostile. It is this order which is impugned in the present writ petitions.

3.Brief facts would be necessary for considering the controversy involved.

The petitioners in these two petitions are the accused in Sessions Case No. 29 of 1997 which is pending before the Sessions Judge, Dadra Nagar Haveli, Silvassa. Lok sabha elections were scheduled to be held on 2nd May, 1996 in the Union Territory of Dadra Nagar Haveli. Two political parties Congress (I) and the B.J.P. were the rival parties contesting the said election. According to the allegation of the prosecution, on 29th April, 1996, some of the workers of the Congress (I) party were proceeding towards the Village Khanvel by jeep. They were allegedly attacked by the workers of the B.J.P. who were coming from the opposite side also in a jeep. In the said incident, one person died on the spot and several others were injured including the aforesaid witnesses who were sought to be re-examined by the prosecution. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners who are accused.

4.The trial of the aforesaid Sessions Case commenced on 2nd March, 2000 and as many as 18 witnesses have been already examined. The aforesaid four witnesses were also examined on 11th and 12th of May, 2000. According to the prosecution, all these four witnesses did not support the prosecution and were declared hostile.

5.Sometime in September 2001, Damabhai Chaudhary, the original complainant, filed Criminal Application No. 3160 of 2001 in this Court requesting for recalling of witness P.W. 2 Jayeshkumar Patel and also praying for transfer of the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar, District Thane or any other Sessions Court in Mumbai or Thane. It was alleged that this witness P.W. 2 was an important witness as he was injured eye-witness. It was further alleged that the P.W. 2 did not support the prosecution because of threats given to him by the petitioners and the members of their party and that now the P.W. 2 was ready to till the truth before the Court. That criminal application was opposed by the present petitioners as also the prosecution by filing their affidavits. However, on 14th February, 2002, the original complainant-Damabhai Chaudhary withdraw the said criminal application without seeking any liberty to file similar petition on similar grounds before the Sessions Court. The said criminal application, therefore, came to be dismissed as withdrawn.

6.Within four days thereafter, i.e. on 18th February, 2002, the prosecution move an application before the learned Sessions Judge praying for recall of the aforesaid four witnesses. It was alleged in the said application that the aforesaid four witnesses were important witnesses as they were the eye-witnesses as also injured witnesses and were also present for identification of dead body at the hospital. It was further alleged that the prosecution had received affidavits sworn by P.W. 2 Jayeshkumar Patel, P.W. 5 Ishwar Vangad and P.W. 7 Kakad Kurkutia explaining therein the threats received by them as a result of which they could not support the prosecution case. As regards P.W. 8 Ladak Mishal, he had made a complaint to the A.I.G.P. making a grievance tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document