The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, recently dismissed a Criminal Writ Petition (No. 730 of 2024) filed by an accused in a corruption case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner sought to quash an order rejecting his application to recall a witness for cross-examination. The court not only dismissed the petition but also imposed a heavy cost of Rs. 50,000, citing the accused’s repeated delays and disregard for court proceedings.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Shashikant Kothawade, was charged under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case dates back to 2018, when the prosecution examined PW-2, the de facto complainant. Cross-examination began on November 16, 2018, but was repeatedly adjourned at the request of the accused’s counsel. Over the years, the trial court passed three "no cross" orders due to the defense’s failure to cross-examine the witness despite multiple opportunities.
The accused filed applications (Exh. 71 and Exh. 80) to recall PW-2, which were allowed conditionally. However, even after these orders, the defense failed to conduct the cross-examination. On December 21, 2023, the witness waited for five hours in court, but the accused’s counsel did not appear, leading the trial court to pass a third "no cross" order.
Read also:- Supreme Court Rules on Release of Convict After 20-Year Fixed-Term Life Sentence
The petitioner’s counsel argued that denying the opportunity to cross-examine PW-2 would cause grave prejudice to the accused. He cited judgments like State of Uttarakhand v. Tilak Seth and P. Sanjeeva Rao v. State of A.P., emphasizing the accused’s right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The counsel also undertook to complete the cross-examination in one day if allowed.
On the other hand, the CBI’s Special Prosecutor, Mr. Sachin Panale, opposed the petition, highlighting the accused’s repeated failures to cross-examine the witness despite two prior chances. He relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab, which criticized the harassment of witnesses due to unnecessary adjournments.
Justice Kishore C. Sant meticulously examined the case records and noted the accused’s "reckless attitude" toward court proceedings. The court observed:
"The act of the accused in the present case shows utter disregard to the Court proceedings. The precious time of the Court is wasted because of the conduct of the litigant. In such circumstances, showing sympathy would practically encourage such practices."
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Under Section 108 of BNS 2023 in Suicide Abetment Case
The court referred to Swaran Singh’s case, where the Supreme Court highlighted the hardships faced by witnesses due to prolonged trials and adjournments. The High Court agreed with these observations and held that the accused’s conduct was "condemnable beyond words."
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
- Sanctity of Court Proceedings: The judgment underscores the importance of respecting judicial processes and avoiding unnecessary delays.
- Witness Protection: The court criticized the harassment of witnesses, who often face inconvenience and financial losses due to repeated adjournments.
- Judicial Accountability: The court refused to grant leniency, stating that misplaced sympathy would undermine the justice system.
- Costs as Deterrence: Imposing Rs. 50,000 costs sends a strong message against frivolous litigation and delays.
Case Title: Shashikant Vitthal Kothawade v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Writ Petition No. 730 of 2024
