Narayan Dattatraya Polawar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 12 February, 2018
09. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for
respondent nos.02 to 04, placed heavy reliance on the
judgment of this Court in the matter of Kishore Wadhwani
& another (supra). There cannot be any dispute on the
proposition of law, that the complainant - informant
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2018 02:20:07 :::
(Judgment) (8) Cri. W.P. No. 0889 of 2017
may seek an audience and the right of participation
of the informant - complainant is a limited right.
There cannot be any dispute on the proposition, that
the informant - complainant cannot assume the charge
of the prosecution which is to be discharged by the
Law Officer, namely, the Advocate General or Public
Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor, as the
case may be, and cannot travel beyond the limited
scope. On the factual aspects referred above, in my
opinion, the complainant is not travelling beyond the
role or scope but his only attempt is to see that the
prosecution agency makes a serious attempt to secure
presence of the important witness like handwriting
expert. Mr. Kadam, learned Counsel for the
petitioner, was also justified in submitting before
this Court, that if such an exercise is undertaken by
the prosecution agency with the sincere efforts, no
prejudice would cause to the respondents - accused
persons. On the contrary, it may only help the court
to reach to the just and proper conclusion. At the
cost of repetition, it may be stated that the reports
submitted to the court on the very date i.e. on
05.04.2016 show that the police machinery was not
making serious attempt to secure presence of the
witnesses and more particularly, witness no.07 Mr.
N.R. Parikh, handwriting expert.