IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2396 OF 2007 M/s.Harshvardhan Shipping Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ......Petitioner V/s M/s.Starlight Lighting Ltd. & Anr. . ...... Respondents. Mr.Prakash Naik, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr.S.C.Naidu, Adv. For the respondent No.1. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 22/1/08 PC: The respondents filed a complaint against the petitioners under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act way back in the year 1999. The complainant had filed an affidavit of examination in chief. The present petitioners/accused, the record reveals, have tried their best to drag the proceedings to the detriment of the interest of the complainant. After lapse of more than eight years an application came to be filed in the trial Court demanding translated copies of the complaint and the affidavit in evidence. The trial Court has rejected the application. In the intervening period the applicants have also moved the Sessions Judge and sought transfer of the case from the file of the earlier presiding officer to some other Court. Said prayer also came to be granted. I have no iota of doubt that by moving very many 1 applications one after another the matter is being prolonged for no just and valid reasons. The demand for translation is nothing but a pretext to prolong the trial. To say the least, the conduct of the petitioners in protracting the trial need to be deprecated. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the petitioners/accused were permitted to conduct re-cross examination of the complainant but as the petitioners had moved the revisional Court and this Court the said right had been forfeited by fixing the case for recording of statement under section 313. Learned counsel for the respondent in all fairness does not oppose the limited prayer for permitting the petitioners to conduct re-cross examination which was granted earlier, to the extend asked for in the application. In this view of the matter though the challenge to the impugned order was passed the J.M.F.C. dated 22.11.07 fails the order dated 11.12.07 is modified. The petitioners are permitted to conduct re-cross examination of the complainant in terms of the permission already granted by the trial Court. The petitioners shall not seek any adjournment henceforth baring tomorrow when the matter has been fixed. Learned counsel assures this Court of the cooperation of the petitioners in the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the matter. The permission to conduct re-cross examination is granted subject to payment of costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioners within four weeks from today. Rule made absolute in above terms. Both the parties undertake to remain present before the trial Court tomorrow. 2