Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2126 (BOM)

Sabina D'Costa v. Olava Rodrigues

2012-11-05

A.P.LAVANDE

body2012
Judgment : Heard Mr. S. Shet, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent nos. 4 and 5. None appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 21.9.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao in Criminal Case No. 155/S/09/I Addl. By which evidence of Sabina D'Costa, the petitioner i.e PW1 who had lodged FIR was closed. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that Criminal Case No. 155/S/09/I Addl. was fixed for recording further evidence of first informant i.e of the petitioner on 21.9.2010 and learned Public prosecutor as well as Advocate Monteiro who was assisting the prosecution in the said case, requested learned Magistrate to keep the matter back since the petitioner could not remain present in time since her mother was suffering from medical ailment. According to the petitioner, she was to go to the Court late on account of medical ailment of her mother. However, learned Magistrate closed the further evidence of the petitioner and directed the prosecution to keep in attendance CW2 on the next date of hearing. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that serious prejudice would be caused to her, if the impugned order is not set aside inasmuch as by the impugned order the petitioner has been deprived of her right to lead further evidence in the case which would ultimately have serious effect on the result of the case. 6. As stated above, none has appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2. 7. I find merit in the submission of Mr. Shet that in the event the impugned order is not set aside serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. In my view, the impugned order dated 21.9.2010 by which further evidence of the petitioner was closed, deserves to be quashed and set aside and is hereby set aside, and the prosecution is permitted to examine the petitioner in Criminal Case no. 155/S/2009/1 in support of the charge framed against respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Shet gives assurance to the Court that the petitioner shall remain present on the next date in the Court for recording her further evidence. The assurance given on behalf of the petitioner is accepted. 8. 155/S/2009/1 in support of the charge framed against respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Shet gives assurance to the Court that the petitioner shall remain present on the next date in the Court for recording her further evidence. The assurance given on behalf of the petitioner is accepted. 8. In the result therefore, the impugned order dated 21.9.2010 is set aside and the prosecution is permitted to further examine the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 155/S/2009/1 on the date/dates fixed by the learned Magistrate. 9. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. 10. Writ Petition stands disposed of.