HARIVADAN NATWARLAL THAKKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS common question of law and facts arise in these group of applications they are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) AT the outset, it is required to be noted that earlier similar applications were submitted by the very applicants- original accused nos. 1 to 4, being Exhs. 251 and 229 with a request to examine those witnesses mentioned in the application as defense witnesses, which came to be allowed and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Ahmedabad vide order dated 28/12/2011 allowed the application, Exh. 251 allowing the witnesses to be examined as defenses witnesses for the defense of alibi on the grounds stated in the said application. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Ahmedabad dated 28/12/2011 below Exh. 251 allowing the witnesses to be examined as defense witnesses came to be challenged by the State/prosecution before this Court, bring Criminal Revision Application No. 39/2012 and the learned Single Judge vide order dated 11/05/2012 has allowed the said Criminal Revision Application permitting Dr. J.B. Shah only to be examined as Court witnesses. Thereafter, without challenging the aforesaid judgment and order passed by this Court passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 39/2012 quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8 Ahmedabad dated 28/12/2011 allowing the witnesses to be examined as defense witnesses and permitting the prosecution to examine one Dr. J.B. Shah as Court witness and rejecting other applications of the accused persons to examine other witnesses as Court witnesses/defense witnesses, the applicants-original accused nos. 1 to 4 again preferred applications, being Exhs. 271 and 272, which came to be disallowed by the learned Sessions Court in view of the judgment and order passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 39/2012. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad below Exhs. 271 and 272 in not entertaining the said applications, in view of the judgment and order passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 39/2012, the applicants- original accused nos. 1 to 4 have preferred the present Criminal Revision Applications.

(4.) The present applications are opposed by Ms. C.M. Shah as well as Shri L.R. Poojari, learned APPs appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. It is submitted that as such the issue, which has been raised in the present Criminal Revision Applications, is already concluded by the learned Single Judge while considering Criminal Revision Application No. 39/2012 and the very prayer of the applicants to examine the witnesses mentioned in the said applications either as court witnesses/defense witnesses have been negatived by this Court and, therefore, as such the learned trial Court has not committed any error and/or illegality in not entertaining the present applications raising the same issue, which was earlier considered by the learned Single Judge and negatived by the learned Single Judge.