1 (crim wp 1749 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1749 OF 2010 Bajirao Anandrao Parit ...Petitioner Vs. United Western Bank Ltd. and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.P.D. Dalvi for Petitioner Mr.A.S. Shitole -APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, who was pleased to reject his application for setting aside the order and no cross passed on 5.2.2009. 3. It is submitted that affidavit of cross examination in chief was filed 17.12.2008 and on 5.2.2009 the Petitioner's advocate was not present and as such, the learned Trial Court was pleased to pass an order of no cross . It is submitted that the Petitioner appointed another advocate and made an application for setting aside the said order. The 2 (crim wp 1749 of 2010) said application was rejected by the Trial Court in November, 2009. Against the said order, a revision application was preferred in the Sessions Court which was also dismissed on the ground that the said application is not maintainable. This order was passed on 1st April, 2010. Thereafter, the present petition has been filed. 4. It is not possible to accept the contention of the Petitioner. It appears that the Applicant had made all efforts to protract the trial and though sufficient opportunity was given to the Petitioner from 17.12.2008 to cross examine the Complainant's witnesses, no steps were taken and as a result, the trial Court had to pass an order of no cross. The Trial Court has observed that after the affidavit of examination in chief was filed on 17.12.2008, sufficient opportunity was given and ultimately on 5.2.2009, the impugned order was passed, even after the accused remained absent and, therefore, non- bailable warrant has been issued and only after the MPW was served he appeared in the Court and filed his application. 5. The said conduct clearly demonstrates the intention of the Applicant appears to be protracted 3 (crim wp 1749 of 2010) the trial under any circumstances. The Complainant Bank had given credit card facilities to the accused on the savings account in the said bank which had overdraft facilities. The accused had utilized the overdraft facilities for an amount of Rs.17,000/- and the relevant documentary evidence have been produced on record. Possibly since the accused did not have any defence, he had chosen to remain absent in order to protract the trial. It has to be noted that the case has been filed by the Bank in 2003 and it is still pending in the Trial Court. 6. On the aforesaid reasons, it is not possible to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. 7. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (V.M. KANADE J.)