1 Cri.Revn.Appln.No.376 of 2010 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.376 OF 2010 Mr.Pramod V. Sankhe ...Applicant. v. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. Mr.Vaibhav Karnik i/by V.G.Bagade, advs. For the Applicant. Smt. V.R.Bhosale, APP For the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : AUGUST 9, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant is a accused facing trial for the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. One advocate, Mr. Bagade conducted the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses on behalf of the accused. It appears that on 11.6.2010, mater was adjourned to 22.6.2010. However, the advocate for the accused misunderstood the next date as 24.6.2010. Therefore, on 22.6.2010 when the matter was called neither the accused nor his counsel Mr.Bagade was present. However, his another advocate Mr. Gujar cross- examined the sanctioning authority. On 24.6.2010, Mr. Bagade made an application to recall the witness for cross-examination. That application was rejected by the learned Special Judge. In the impugned order, the 2 Cri.Revn.Appln.No.376 of 2010 learned special Judge also noted that there may be some genuine misunderstanding about the next date. There is no dispute that all the witnesses for the prosecution were being cross-examined by Mr.Bagade and not by Mr.Gujar though he has also filed vakalatnama. P.W.3 Sanctioning Authority is an officer posted in Mumbai , therefore, there could be no difficulty in securing his presence again. 2 Taking into consideration all the above circumstances, in the interest of justice, revision application is allowed. Impugned order is set aside and the learned Special Judge is hereby directed to recall P.W.3 the Sanctioning Authority for further cross-examination in Special Case No. 21 of 2008. 3 Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)