JUDGMENT

S.B. Shukre, J -Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.

2. This writ petition challenges two orders passed by the Special Court, Pusad.

3. The order dated 2nd March 2016 allowing the prosecution application for recording of evidence of victim of crime and also the order dated 18th December 2017 allowing application of the petitioner to grant him copies of audiovideo recording and defer recording of evidence of the victim till that time, are the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the provisions of Section 35 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the first order dated 2nd March 2016 could not have been passed. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that this order was passed after the petitioner did not take any objection worth the name to the application filed by the prosecution in that behalf and, therefore, now the petitioneraccused cannot seek to challenge this order.

5. I think, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State is right. To the application (exhibit 24) filed seeking permission of the Court to allow the prosecution