25-REVN-152-2025 (CR).doc Tikam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 152 OF 2025 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant/s Versus Niraj Vijay Sonawane ...Respondent/s _________________________________________________________________ Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for Applicant. None for Respondent-State PSI Swapnil Londhe, Kurla Police Station, Mumbai. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 21st AUGUST, 2026. P.C. : 1. Heard learned APP for the Applicant. 2. The challenge in this revision application is the order passed below Exhibit 28 by the Learned Special Judge, Greater Mumbai whereby the Learned Judge has rejected the application filed by the prosecution to set aside the order and allow the prosecution to examine seven witnesses. 3. It is contention of learned APP that the prosecution examined two witnesses in support of their case and thereafter the prosecution could not examine the other witnesses. The Learned Judge has closed evidence and matter is posted for recording the statement of Respondent No.1/ Accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Digitally signed by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date: 2026.08.28 10:05:24 +0530 25-REVN-152-2025 (CR).doc Tikam 'Cr.P.C.'). Thereafter, the prosecution filed application for setting aside the evidence closed order. But Learned Judge has rejected the said application without any reasonable reason and requested to allow the application. 4. Though Respondent served, none present for Respondent. I have heard learned APP for the State. Perused the impugned order. The charges against Respondent are framed under the provisions of POCSO Act. It appears that after examination of two witnesses, the prosecution could not examine other witnesses. Hence, prosecution evidence was closed by the Learned Special Judge and matter was posted for recording statement of respondent No.1 Accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, prosecution filed application to set aside the evidence close order and allow them to examine seven witnesses in support of their case. But the Learned Judge has rejected the said application on the ground that sufficient opportunity was given to the prosecution and matter is posted for statement of under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In my view, the charges leveled against Accused No.1 are under the provisions of POCSO Act, it is necessary to give opportunity to the prosecution to prove their case but the Learned Judge has not considered this fact and I pass following order: ORDER (i) Revision Application is allowed. 25-REVN-152-2025 (CR).doc Tikam (ii) The impugned order dated 05/02/2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge (P.O.C. Act), Greater Bombay in Special Case No. 547 of 2020 is quashed and set aside. The prosecution is permitted to examine the witnesses in support of their case. (iii) Prosecution shall not prolong the matter and examine the witnesses as early as possible. Criminal Revision Application is disposed of accordingly. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)