31-REVN-116-2025 (CR).doc N.S.Kamble IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 116 OF 2025 The State Of Maharashtra ...Applicant VERSUS Gajala Ram Jadhav ...Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Mr.S.M. Mangaonkar, APP, for the Applicant-State. Mr.Vinay Bhanushali a/w Mr.Pujan Patel, for the Respondent. Mr.Raju Chavan, PI, Juhu Police Station. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C. : . The challenge in this Application is to the order dated 5th December 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, below Exhibit-204, in Sessions Case No.983 of 2004, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the Application to examine the prosecution witnesses under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short). 2. It is contention of the learned APP that allegations in the prosecution’s case are about double murder. Two FIRs are filed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) and prosecution wants to examine the witness granting sanction and the dealer of arms, as charge was framed under the Arms Act. But this fact has not been NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Digitally signed by NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date: 2026.09.24 18:51:11 +0530 31-REVN-116-2025 (CR).doc N.S.Kamble considered by the learned Sessions Judge and has passed impugned order, which is erroneous and requested to allow the Application. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Respondent that the prosecution has closed its evidence. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded and matter is posted for the arguments. When the matter was posted for arguments, Application was filed by the prosecution without reasonable ground and no explanation was given as to why no witnesses was examined earlier. The trial is going on since 2004 and evidence was closed in the year 2015. The learned Sessions Judge has passed well reasoned order, no interference is required in it and requested to reject the Application. 4. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned order and documents produced on record. 5. Admittedly, both FIR’s are registered against the Respondent and other Accused under Section 302 of IPC. The charges against both accused are framed under the Arms Act. The prosecution wants to examine witnesses regarding sanction and dealer of arms. 6. In my view, these witnesses are relevant witnesses. The mistake of the concerned APP cannot be a ground to deny the prosecution to examine the witnesses in support of case though the matter is at the stage of arguments. If prosecution is directed to examine the witness within a 31-REVN-116-2025 (CR).doc N.S.Kamble span of one month, it would suffice and I pass following order. ORDER (i) The Application is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 5th December 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, below Exhibit-204, in Sessions Case No.983 of 2004 is quashed and set aside. (iii) The prosecution shall examine two witnesses within one month, after receipt of this order. (iv) All pending Applications are disposed of. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)