*1* 918crwp645o24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 645 OF 2024 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS GAJANAN DAMODAR MAHATRE AND OTHERS ... Shri G.O. Wattamwar, APP for the Petitioner/State. Mrs. Dr. Anagha Padgaonkar, (appointed) Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. ... CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 30 September, 2025 P. C. :- 1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 2. The State has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order dated 09.11.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, Aurangabad, in application below exhibit 367 in Sessions Case (MCOCO 1999) No.21/2012 whereby, the said application for re-examination of PW-20, who is panch witness, has been rejected. 3. Learned APP submits that various discrepancies have been cropped up in the matter, which have caused serious ambiguity. The prosecution is supposed to remove them. 2025:BHC-AUG:27438 *2* 918crwp645o24 According to learned APP, said panch witness i.e. PW-20 Shri Sainath Keshavrao Nikam is panch to various panchanamas, therefore, for the purpose of securing ends of justice, it is necessary to re-examine him. In the interest of justice, learned Additional Sessions Court ought to have permitted the prosecution to re-examine said witness. According to learned APP, while passing the impugned order, learned Additional Sessions Judge has not assigned proper reasoning. He, therefore, prayed for allowing the petition. In support of above submissions, learned APP has relied upon the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Rammi Alias Rameshwar vs. State of M.P., (1999) 8 SCC 649 and the order dated 16.01.2023 of this Court passed Criminal Writ Petition No.887/2022 (Aurangabad Bench) filed by the State of Maharashtra vs. Nitin Jagan Patil @ Papai and another. 4. Learned advocate for the contesting respondents vehemently objected the petition and stated that the prosecution, in order to fill in lacuna, has preferred the application. Trial is pending since 2012 and till now, only 22 witnesses are examined out of 43 witnesses. Therefore, at this stage of trial, the *3* 918crwp645o24 prosecution’s request for reexamination of witness should not be entertained and as such, learned Additional Sessions Court has rightly rejected the same. She also submitted that the respondents are in jail since long and by filing such application, the State is trying to prolong trial. She, therefore, prayed for dismissal of this petition. 5. After hearing the parties and perusing the available record with their assistance, it is seen that the impugned order discloses that no proper reasons have been assigned by learned Additional Sessions Court. Looking to the reasons stated by the State as regards re-examination of the said witness, the prosecution ought to have been permitted to re-examine him. In this regard, learned APP has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Rammi alias Rameshwar (supra) wherein, it is observed in paragraph Nos.16 to 19 as under:- “16. The very purpose of re-examination is to explain matters which have been brought down in cross- examination. Section 138 of the Evidence Act outlines the amplitude of re-examination. It reads thus: “138. Direction of re-examination.- The re- examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and if *4* 918crwp645o24 new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter.” 17. There is an erroneous impression that re- examination should be confined to clarification of ambiguities which have been brought down in cross-examination. No doubt, ambiguities can be resolved through re-examination. But that is not the only function of the re-examiner. If the party who called the witness feels that explanation is required for any matter referred to in cross- examination he has the liberty to put any question in re-examination to get the explanation. The Public Prosecutor should formulate his questions for that purpose. Explanation may be required either when ambiguity remains regarding any answer elicited during cross-examination or even otherwise. If the Public Prosecutor feels that certain answers require more elucidation from the witness he has the freedom and the right to put such questions as he deems necessary for that purpose, subject of course to the control of the court in accordance with the other provisions. But the court cannot direct him to confine his questions to ambiguities alone which arose in cross- examination. 18. Even if the Public Prosecutor feels that new matters should be elicited from the witness he can do so, in which case the only requirement is that he must secure permission of the court. If the Court thinks that such new matters are necessary for proving any material fact, courts must be liberal in granting permission to put necessary questions. 19. A Public Prosecutor who is attentive during cross- examination cannot but be sensitive to discern which answer in cross-examination requires explanation. An efficient Public Prosecutor would gather up such answers falling from the mouth of a witness during cross-examination and formulate necessary questions to be put in re-examination. There is no warrant that re-examination should be limited to one or two questions. If the exigency requires any number of questions can be asked in *5* 918crwp645o24 re-examination.” 6. Learned APP has also rightly placed reliance upon paragraph No.4 of the order of this Court in Nitin Jagan Patil (supra), which reads as under:- “4. After hearing the parties and judgment cited by the learned Prosecutor reported in 1999 AIR (SC) 3544 in the case of Rammi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, this Court finds that such application cannot be said to be merely for filling up lacuna. In fact, it is necessary to bring on record truth in the matter and for that purpose it is necessary to allow the application. The learned Sessions Court has further made observations as quoted below. “Learned Prosecutor, for the reasons best known to him, did not choose to do so.” This Court finds that these observations are unwanted, as the public prosecutor conducts prosecution to the best of his ability.” 7. In view of submissions, it is clear that the State has made out the case for re-examination of witness PW-20. The defence will also be having opportunity to cross-examine said witness and as such, there is no harm in considering the prayer of the prosecution. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The *6* 918crwp645o24 impugned order is quashed and set aside. PW-20 is permitted to be re-examined within four weeks. 8. Since the trial is pending since 2012, learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge is directed to decide the said case expeditiously. 9. Dr. Anagha Padgaonkar is appointed through High Court Legal Aid Services Sub Committee, to represent the contesting respondents. After thoroughly preparing, she has conducted the matter. Her fees be quantified and paid to her as per rules. kps ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )