Advocates:
['CHAITANYA B BARVE', '', 'DEVENDRA V CHAUHAN', 'SWAPNIL S SHINGANE']

1 criw.p. 688-2020.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

Criminal Writ Petition No. 688 of 2020

PETITIONER :

Bhagyashree Prashant Wasankar

Aged about 38 years,

Occupation : Business,

R/o Plot No. 247, Hill I road,

Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur

Vs.

RESPONDENT :

The State of Maharashtra, Through

Police Station Officer, Police Station,

Ambazari, Nagpur Now with EOW

Mr. D.V. Chauhan, Advocate with Mr. C.B. Barve, Advocate for

the petitioner

Ms. Shamsi Haider, APP for the respondent

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

RESERVED ON : 05.07.2021

PRONOUNCED ON: 15.07.2021

JUDGMENT

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel

appearing for rival parties.

2.

The question that arises for consideration in

this Writ Petition is, as to whether a witness appearing

2 criw.p. 688-2020.odt

for the prosecution in a sessions trial can produce

documents which were not part of the charge-sheet filed

before the Court and whether such procedure for

production of documents directly by the prosecution

witness is contemplated under the provisions of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).

3.

The petitioner is one of the accused persons

in the trial pending before the Sessions Court i.e.

Additional Sessions Judge-11 at Nagpur. The offences

alleged against the petitioner and accused persons are

under Sections 420, 406, 409, 506 and 120-B of the

Indian Penal Code, as also Sections 45(1)(a) and 45(s)

of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1949, Section 24(1)

and Section 27 of the Securities & Exchange Board of

India Act, 1992 and subsequently added offence under

Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of

Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.

4.

It is the case of the prosecution that as a

consequence of the said alleged offences committed by

the petitioner and other accused persons, a large

number of investors were defrauded. The Investigating

Officer had seized various documents relating to the

3 criw.p. 688-2020.odt

alleged offences and multiple bulky charge-sheets

running into thousands of pages were filed before the

Sessions Court.

5.

During the course of the trial, a witness, Dr.

Ashok Gajanan Lanjewar, was sought to be examined by

the prosecution. The said witness moved an application

bearing Exh. No.1106, before the Sessions Court seeking

permission to produce additional documents. It was

simply stated in the application that the said witness had

misplaced the documents and since they were now

found, he was seeking to place them before the Sessions

Court. The said application was opposed by the

petitioner and other accused persons, contending that

such an application was not maintainable under the

provisions of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner placed much

emphasis before the Sessions Court on the scheme of the

Cr.P.C. and the role of Public Prosecutor, while

contending that the attempt on the part of the witness to

produce documents directly in such a manner was

unknown to the procedure contemplated under the

Cr.P.C. It was submitted that grave prejudice was caused

to the accused persons, including the petitioner and that

4 criw.p. 688-2020.odt

additional documents, if any, could be produced only

upon further investigation being undertaken under

Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer.

6.

By the impugned order dated 11/12/2020,

the Sessions Court allowed the aforesaid application at

Exh.1106. The contentions raised on behalf of the

petitioner and other accused persons were rejected.

Reference was made to Sections 242 and 294 of the

Cr.P.C., as also certain judgments of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court and this Court.

7.

Aggrieved by the impugned order, the

petitioner filed the present Writ Petition, wherein notice

was issued on 22/12/2020. The learned APP appeared

on behalf of the respon