1. Heard Shri A. Lekhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents. By the present Application filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.,for short), the Applicant against whom charge has been framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa vide her order dated 07/09/2017 is challenging the same pursuant to which the learned Additional Sessions Judge ordered charge to be framed against him under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 341, 342, 376 (2)(f) and 376 (2)(k) I.P.C.

2. Heard Shri A. Lekhi, learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant who briefly alluded to the backdrop of the case and on adverting to the impugned order submitted that the CCTV footage which was the best evidence was not considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order. The CCTV footage was relevant and material to understand whether the offence of wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement was attracted to the case. The learned Judge duly considered the factors relevant for framing the charge as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court