/ 1 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.298 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1645 OF 2006 Mr.Dilip Popatlal Shah ...Applicant/ Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.K.H. Holambe-Patil for Applicant. Mr.J.P. Yagnik APP for the State/Respondent. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : 18th JANUARY, 2008. P.C:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. Applicant seeks modification of the order passed by this Court dated 10th September, 2007 in Writ Petition No.1645 of 2006. By the said order, Writ Petition filed by the Applicant herein was dismissed and the order passed by the Trial Court was confirmed. / 2 / 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that said order was passed in his absence. He submitted that an application was made for issuance of summons against one Mr.Ashok Kakade who was a police officer. He submitted that said witness did not remain present and, therefore, ultimately his application for issuance of summons was rejected by the Trial Court. It is submitted that it is necessary to examine said witness and, therefore, said order which was passed in his absence may be recalled and writ petition may be restored to the file. 4. It is not possible to accept submissions made by the learned counsel for the Applicant. Perusal of the paper indicates that summons was issued against witness Mr.Ashok Kakade and that thereafter, matter was adjourned at least on 60 occasions. Even if the submissions of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant is accepted that prosecution deliberately did not produce documents which were sought to be proved from the said witness, the Trial Court can always draw adverse inference. The Trial Court was justified in granting further adjournments in favour of the Applicant herein. Since matter was pending since 2002, no case is made out / 3 / for recalling or modifying order passed by this Court dated 10th September, 2007. The Applicant may argue during the trial that for non-production of documents, adverse inference may be drawn against the prosecution. Application is dismissed. . Application is disposed of accordingly. V.M. KANADE, J.