Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 321 (BOM)

RADM (Retd. ) Balkrishnan Ravi Menon v. State

2010-03-03

R.M.SAVANT

body2010
JUDGMENT:- Rule. 2. With the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 3. This Petition takes exception to the Order dated 22.09.2009, passed by the learned Spl. Judge, South Goa, by which Order, the Application dated 15.07.2009, (Exh.383-D), filed on behalf of the Accused for permission to re-examine the Accused/DW.l, came to be rejected. 4. The said application for reexamination was filed on the ground that during the cross examination, some issues have arisen which need further explanation and that certain documents have now come in the possession of the Accused which he needs to produce in the Court as all the above is necessary for a just decision of the case. The learned Special Judge has dealt with each of the questions that the learned Advocate proposes to ask the Accused in re-examination in the impugned Order. The learned Special Judge, b~ the impugned Order, was of the view that inspite of the examination-in-chief of the Accused being spread over a number of days, as also on the ground that the said questions are not relevant, has rejected the said Application. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel Shri. D'Souza for the Petitioner-Accused and learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, Shri. C. A. Ferreira, for the State. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner at the outset submitted that he would be satisfied if Question no.2(a) in the Application, which is as follows, Whether you have any documentary proof to indicate your breeding of boxer pups and Ouestion no.3, Do you have any document to indicate your earnings by your deputation abroad during your service with the Indian Navy, and what was the actual amount earned by you while on deputation, are permitted in the re-examination. The learned Counsel submitted that the documents in question, came to be available to the Accused only after his examination-in-chief was over. 6. On behalf of the State, the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, opposed the Application on the ground that at the relevant time, inspite of opportunity, the said documents were not produced as also on the ground of protraction of the trial on one pretext or the other. 7. I have perused the impugned Order and has also considered the relevancy of the question no.2(a) as also question no.3. It cannot be disputed that the documents in question became available to the Petitioner-Accused only after his cross-examination. 7. I have perused the impugned Order and has also considered the relevancy of the question no.2(a) as also question no.3. It cannot be disputed that the documents in question became available to the Petitioner-Accused only after his cross-examination. In fact, the documents in respect of question no.3, were made available to him by the High Commission only recently. 8. In my view, therefore, in the interest of a fair trial, the Application for reexamination in so far as question nos. 2(a) and 3 are concerned, is required to be allowed. Resultantly, the re-examination of the Petitioner-Accused would be restricted to question nos.2(a) and 3 as mentioned above. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner makes a statement that he would cooperate in the early disposal of the said Special Case. 9. The Petition is therefore allowed by making the Rule absolute to the aforesaid extent. Parties to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.