Ramchandra Vs. State of Maharashtra

Ramchandra vs State of Maharashtra

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Nagpur Decided Apr 22, 2016

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1184679

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1184679
Court: Mumbai Nagpur High Court
Judge: Z.A. Haq
Decided On: Apr 22, 2016
Case Number: Criminal Application (APL) No. 429 of 2015
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramchandra

Respondent

State of Maharashtra

Excerpt

oral judgment: 1. heard shri s.v. sirpurkar, advocate for the applicant and shri r.s. nayak, additional public prosecutor for the non-applicant. 2. rule. rule made returnable forthwith. 3. the applicant (accused) has challenged the order passed by the sessions court allowing the application (exhibit no.24) filed by the complainant. 4. according to the applicant (accused), the impugned order is unsustainable as the sessions court has no jurisdiction to permit the prosecution to record statements of witnesses once the prosecution is committed to the sessions court. 5. shri r.s. nayak, additional public prosecutor states that the prosecution does not intend to record the statements of the witnesses but in fact the witnesses are to be examined before the court and their names are already submitted earlier. the learned additional public prosecutor has argued that the court has power under section 311 of the code of criminal procedure to permit the prosecution to examine witnesses. the legal position as per section 311 of the code of criminal procedure is not disputed by the learned advocate for the applicant. 6. hence, the following order : i) the impugned order is modified/clarified and it is directed that the non-applicant cannot record statements of the witnesses, however, the witnesses shall be permitted to be examined in the trial before the sessions court. ii) the application is disposed accordingly.

Full Judgment

Oral Judgment:

1. Heard Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the applicant and Shri R.S. Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The applicant (accused) has challenged the order passed by the Sessions Court allowing the application (Exhibit No.24) filed by the complainant.

4. According to the applicant (accused), the impugned order is unsustainable as the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction to permit the prosecution to record statements of witnesses once the prosecution is committed to the Sessions Court.

5. Shri R.S. Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor states that the prosecution does not intend to record the statements of the witnesses but in fact the witnesses are to be examined before the Court and their names are already submitted earlier. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that the Court has power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the prosecution to examine witnesses. The legal position as per Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not disputed by the learned Advocate for the applicant.

6. Hence, the following order :

i) The impugned order is modified/clarified and it is directed that the non-applicant cannot record statements of the witnesses, however, the witnesses shall be permitted to be examined in the trial before the Sessions Court.

ii) The application is disposed accordingly.

Same Court & Year Mumbai Nagpur · 2016 Same Parties Ramchandra vs State of Maharashtra Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge Z.A. Haq