2-REVN-451-2022 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 451 OF 2022 Central Bureau Of Investigation ...Applicant VERSUS State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, Special P.P. for Applicant. Mr. S. M. Mangaonkar, APP for Respondent-State. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. The challenge in this application is to impugned orders dated 04.10.2022 and 12.10.2022 below Exhibit-368 and Exhibit- 370 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik. 2. It is contention of learned Special P.P. for the applicant that prosecution wants to examine witnesses in support of their case, but the learned Judge has observed that it would reopen the closed case causing prejudice to defence. Learned Special P.P. further submitted that the learned Judge has closed the prosecution’s evidence on the ground that prosecution has already examined 39 witnesses. Learned Special P.P. further submitted that prosecution be given an opportunity to prove its case, and four more witnesses are required to be examined. The charges SONALI SATISH KILAJE Digitally signed by SONALI SATISH KILAJE Date: 2026.09.29 17:34:42 +0530 2-REVN-451-2022 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje against the accused are serious and requested to allow the application. 3. Though respondent Nos.2 to 6 are served, none present for respondent Nos.2 to 6, hence I am deciding this application on merit. 4. It appears from the record that prosecution had filed application dated 04.10.2022, praying for issuance of witness summons to the witnesses. The learned Judge has rejected the said application by passing order observing that, since the Investigating Officer has been examined, now allowing the application would amount to reopening closed case causing prejudice to defence and rejected the application. In my view, evidence of the prosecution witnesses was not closed when the said order was passed. The prosecution wanted to examine the witnesses in support of their case. Though the case was at advance stage, the learned Judge should have given opportunity to prosecution to prove its case. However, learned Judge rejected the application, which is erroneous. It appears from record that on 12.10.2022, learned Judge closed prosecution’s evidence when an application for exhibiting the documents was filed, stating that 39 witnesses have already been examined and for the preceding 3-4 dates, prosecution had neither led evidence nor produced any evidence. In my view, by earlier order dated 04.10.2022, the learned Judge has rejected the application for issuance of witness summons and by order dated 12.10.2022, the learned Judge has observed that prosecution 2-REVN-451-2022 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje was not producing any witnesses. The observations of the learned Judge are contradictory. The application for exhibiting of documents was also rejected. This shows both the orders were passed without application of mind and in haste. In view of above, I pass following order: ORDER (i) The impugned orders dated 04.10.2022 and 12.10.2022 passed below Exhibit-368 and Exhibit-370 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, are quashed and set aside. (ii) The prosecution is permitted to examine witnesses mentioned in the list and prove the documents as per the procedure. (iii) The prosecution shall examine the witnesses as early as possible. 5. The Revision Application is allowed and disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also disposed of. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)