1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1086 OF 2009

Date of decision:25/6/2010

For approval and signature

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHRIHARI P.DAVARE

1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers

Yes

may be allowed to see the Judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

Yes

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see

No.

the fair copy of the Judgment ?

4. Whether this case involves a substantial?

No.

question of law as to the interpretation

of the Constitution of India, 1950, or

any order made thereunder ?

5. Whether it is to be circulated to the

No.

Civil Judges ?

6. Whether the case involves an important

No

question of law and whether a copy of

the Order should be sent to Bombay,

Goa and Nagpur Office ?

(A.G. PARALIKAR)

Private Secretary

agp/office/

2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1086 OF 2009

Vikas s/o Sureshrao Waghmare,

Age 35 years, Occu: Service,

r/o Staff quarters, Old Court Building,

Gandhi Chowk, Shrirampur,

Shrirampur, Dist.Ahmednagar.

...PETITIONER

(Ori.Accused)

VERSUS

Moreshwar s/o Bhausaheb Kadam,

Age 42 years, Occu: Service,

r/o. Chitale Road, Ahmednagar.

...RESPONDENTS

(Ori.complainant)

...

Mr. V.S.Bedre, Adv., for the petitioner.

Mrs. Manjusha S.Jagtap, Adv., for the

respondent (sole).

...

CORAM: SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J.

DATE :25/6/2010

***

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1.

Heard Mr. V.S.Bedre, learned Counsel for

the petitioner as well as Mrs. Manjusha S.Jagtap,

learned counsel for the respondent.

2.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

With the consent of the learned Counsel for the

parties, petition is taken up for final hearing.

3

3.

By the present petition preferred by the

petitioner ( original accused), under Article 227

of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has

prayed for quashing and setting aside the order

dt.1st Nov.,2009, passed by the learned 6th Joint

Civil Judge, Senior Division and Judicial

Magistrate, First Class, Ahmednagar, below Exh.

61, in S.T.C.No.2283/2008, thereby rejecting the

application preferred by the petitioner herein

under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

4.

Admittedly, the respondent herein

(original complainant) filed S.T.C. case No.

2283/2008 against the petitioner herein (original

accused) under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act. After recording the verification

of the complainant, the process came to be issued

against the petitioner herein under Section 138

of Negotiable Instrument Act on 24.7.2008.

Thereafter, the respondent herein filed affidavit

in support of his claim in lieu of examination in

chief on 22nd Jan.,2009 and the cross examination

of the respondent herein was also conducted on

16th Feb.,2009. Moreover, the respondent

examined Assistant Manager of the Union Bank of

India, Branch at Ahmednagar and his cross

examination was conducted on 8.4.2009.

5.

Thereafter, the petitioner herein

4

preferred an application in question ( Exh.61) on

5.10.2009 under Section 311 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, with a prayer to recall respondent

(original complainant) for cross examination

since some vital questions remained to be put to

him during his cross examination which was

conducted earlier. Learned Counsel for the

respondent opposed the said application by filing

say. Accordingly, the learned Judge rejected

the said application (Exh.61) by order passed on

1st Nov.,2009 and, thereby, declined permission

to the petitioner herein to recall the respondent

for cross examination. Being aggrieved and

dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner

(original accused) has approached to this Court

by w