05-WP-764-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.764 OF 2025 Vikram Ashok Jogani & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents —————— Mr. Jugal Kanani, for the Petitioners. Ms. S. M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. Kaushik Mhatre a/w Sanket Dhawan & Shubham Yadav, for Respondent No.2. —————— Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar, J. Date: July 27, 2026 P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Kanani, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Ms. Yadav, learned APP for the State and Mr. Mhatre, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2. 2. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the legality and validity of the Order dated 21st December 2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, below Exhibit-240 in CC No.856/PW/2011. The said application bearing Exhibit- 240 has been 9led on behalf of the Petitioners i.e. Original Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking recall of PW-1 and PW-2 for further cross-examination. Arjun 1 ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Digitally signed by ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Date: 2026.07.30 14:37:14 +0530 05-WP-764-2025.doc The said Application was rejected by the impugned Order dated 21st December 2023. 3. Mr. Kanani, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, points out Paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the Application bearing Exhibit-240 dated 26th October 2023 and submits that for the reasons set out in said paragraph, it is necessary to recall the witnesses. He submits that the witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 are sought to be recalled as by examining the PW-4 the Advocate for the First Informant caused production of a letter dated 22nd September 2011 (Exhibit-124), which was never part of the Charge-sheet and through PW-7 documents (Exhibits 178-181) were sought to be produced. These documents are the registered entries maintained by M/s. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Ltd. He, therefore, submits that PW-1 and PW-2 be allowed to recalled. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Mhatre, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2, submits that the letter dated 22nd September 2011 was part of the Charge-sheet. He submits that there is reference to Exhibits 178- 181 in the said letter. He points out the said letter dated 22nd September 2011 at Page 707 of the AAdavit-in-Reply. He submits that the said letter is on Page No.264 of the Charge-sheet. He also points out the Order dated 24th September 2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, below Exhibit-162 in Case No.856/PW/2011 (Pages 815-817). The said Arjun 2 05-WP-764-2025.doc Application has been 9led for calling the witness Prashant Jha i.e. PW-7. He, more particularly, points out Paragraph No.7 of the said Order dated 24th September 2021. He, therefore, submits that no interference in the impugned order is warranted. 5. Perusal of the record shows that although it is the speci9c contention raised in the said Application bearing Exhibit-240 that letter dated 22nd September 2011 is not the part of the Charge-sheet, the same is the part of the Charge-sheet and is at Page No.264 of the Charge-sheet. The said letter is produced at Page 707 of the AAdavit-in- Reply. A scanned copy of the said letter is reproduced herein below for ready reference: Arjun 3 05-WP-764-2025.doc The said letter speci9cally makes reference to the Invoice Number and Date and Date of Delivery of four letters which are mentioned in the register. Arjun 4 05-WP-764-2025.doc 6. Perusal of the Order dated 24th September 2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, below Exhibit-162 in Case No.856/PW/2011 which has been 9led for calling the witness Prashant Jha for examination-in- chief, shows that the said Application was 9led for exhibiting the entries mentioned in the Import Delivery register with respect to invoices dated 25th January 2011, 26th January 2011, 31st January 2011 and 4th February 2011. It is signi9cant to note Paragraph No.7 of the said Order dated 24th September 2021, which reads as under: “7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case to prove entries dated 25.01.2011, 26.01.2011, 31.01.2011 and 04.02.2011, prosecution wants to examine this witness. The reference of this witness is in the evidence of P.W. 4 Abhay Manohar Desai who deposed that relevant entries mentioned in register maintained by Custodian and after verifying entries he issued letter to Investigation O6cer of Economic O8ences Wing. It shows that already entries are there and this witness is custodian of this register. Therefore no new fact will come on record. Already those entries are on record. Considering the nature of evidence which prosecution wants to bring on record as there is opportunity of cross-examination to the accused no prejudice would cause to him. However, prosecution wants to examine his as regards documents which are already on record. …” 7. Thus, in fact, PW-4 Abhay Manohar Desai has also made reference to the said letters and reference to these entries, as noted herein above in the letter dated 22nd September 2011 which is already produced at Page 264 of the Charge-sheet. Arjun 5 05-WP-764-2025.doc 8. Thus, in these circumstances, no interference in the impugned Order is warranted. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.] Arjun 6