Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 355 (BOM)

Hanuman v. State Of Maharashtra

2023-02-01

G.A.SANAP

body2023
JUDGMENT G. A. Sanap, J. - RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned advocates for the parties. 2. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the separate notices issued to each one of them, dated 23.05.2022 in terms of the judgment and order dated 23.05.2022 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha. The impugned notices were issued by the Superintendent (Judicial Section), District and Sessions Court, Wardha to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them for giving false evidence in Special (Atro.) Case No. 89/2020 (State.vs. Sachin Babade and others). 3. The petitioners were examined as witnesses in the above referred special case. The petitioners did not support the case of the prosecution. They were declared hostile with the permission of the Court. Learned Judge in his detail judgment, has opined that these witnesses (petitioners herein) have given false evidence. In terms of the directions set out in the judgment dated 23.5.2022, the Superintendent issued separate notices to the petitioners. These notices are impugned in this petition. 4. I have heard Mr. Parvez Mirza, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Amit R. Chutke, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Also perused the record and proceedings. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioners, relying upon the decision in the case of Dr. S. P. Kohli.vs. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, reported at 1978 Cri.L.J. 1804, submitted that on the basis of vague statement made in the notices, the petitioners are denied fair opportunity to meet the actual allegations against them. Learned advocate submitted that relevant material ought to have been referred to in the notices. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that the impugned notices may be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate further submitted that in order to enable the petitioners to meet the allegations against them, specific notices can be issued by relying upon the relevant material by setting aside the impugned notices. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the relevant observations have been made in the judgment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while deciding the special case. Learned APP, in short, supported the impugned notices. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the relevant observations have been made in the judgment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while deciding the special case. Learned APP, in short, supported the impugned notices. In the alternative, learned APP submitted that if this Court is inclined to accept the submission advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioners, then in that event, the concerned may be directed to issue specific notices, by making reference to the relevant material, in accordance with law. 7. I have perused the notices issued to the petitioners. The facts stated in the notices does not contain concrete statement. It is also not stated in the notices that the notices are issued on the basis of the observation/finding recorded by the Court in the judgment. It is stated in the notices that there is prima facie material to indicate that they have deliberately given false evidence or became hostile without brief elaboration of that material. 8. The question is whether the contents of the notices are sufficient to offer a fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to answer the notices and meet the case sought to be asserted against them. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. S.P. Kohli (supra), has held that the notice issued in such a matter must satisfy the essential requirement of law. Such notice must specify the offending statement from the evidence. It is held that the necessary portion of the witnesses' statement is required to be set out in the notice. In the case on hand, it appears that prima facie finding was recorded by the learned Judge with regard to the false evidence given by the petitioners. The notices are issued as a sequel to the said observation. Perusal of the notices would show that specific mention of this fact has not been made therein. 9. In my view, therefore, the petitioners have a right to know what is going to hit them. If they know it, then only they would be able to meet it properly. Therefore, in my view, the impugned notices are required to be quashed and set aside. 9. In my view, therefore, the petitioners have a right to know what is going to hit them. If they know it, then only they would be able to meet it properly. Therefore, in my view, the impugned notices are required to be quashed and set aside. However, considering the fact that the learned Judge has made specific observation in the judgment dated 23.05.2022 on the point of false evidence given by these witnesses (petitioners), it would be appropriate to direct the concerned to issue fresh notices to the petitioners by stating the relevant material/facts for initiation of proceeding for giving false evidence and specific section under which they would be prosecuted. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. (i) Impugned notices dated 23.09.2022 issued to the petitioners by the Superintendent (Judicial Section), District and Sessions Court, Wardha are quashed and set aside. He is directed to issue fresh notice to the petitioners in accordance with law and by keeping in mind the law laid down in the case of Dr. S.P. Kohli (supra). (ii) Registry to communicate this order to the learned 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, forthwith. 11. Rule is made absolute accordingly. The petition stands disposed of.