0903cwp71.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.71 OF 2011. Montu Yogendra Narayan Verma ..vs.. The Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur and ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The petition by Post. Mr.D.B.Yengal, APP for the State. CORAM : V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND PRASANNA B.VARALE, JJ. DATED : 9TH MARCH, 2011. 1. The petitioner is facing trial in Sessions Case No.166 of 2009, which is pending before the Sessions Court at Chandrapur. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he had made a number of applications to the trial court for expeditious disposal of the trial, till today even the charge has not been framed. 3. In view of the grievance of the petitioner, report was called from the Sessions Court, Chandrapur. On going through the report, it is noticed that on 2-8-2010, the petitioner moved the first application before the trial Court for expeditious trial. However, a Special Public Prosecutor was directed to be appointed in the matter. 0903cwp71.11.odt 2/3 As the Special Public Prosecutor was not appointed in the matter till 25/10/2010, the Trial Court could not frame charge, as no draft charge was submitted by the prosecution. Hence, on 25-10-2010, the trial Court directed the prosecution to take necessary steps for appointment of Spl. Public Prosecutor. On 8-11-2010, the co-accused Abdul Rajik Abdul Nabbi filed application for transfer of cases before the Principal District Judge, which was rejected on 18-11-2010. On 6-12-2010 the Special Public Prosecutor appeared. The petitioner then preferred an application for bail which was being heard after calling for say. However, on 3-1-2011, some of the accused persons preferred an application for transfer of the case to another district. The ground for transfer was that no Advocate was willing to represent them. This application was sent to the High Court. As the matter was pending in the High Court, the trial could not proceed. 4. It is noticed that this application for transfer i.e. Cri. Application No.9/2011 was disposed of on 2-2-2011. This court by order dated 2/2/2011 in Criminal Application No.9 of 2011 observed that as the accused persons are now being represented by Advocates, and as Mr. Mandpe, Special Public Prosecutor made a statement that the sessions case is at the stage of framing of charge, hence the grievance of the accused does not survive and thus the application was disposed of. As the trial Court was not made aware of this order 0903cwp71.11.odt 3/3 the trial Court did not proceed. 5. Now that the Special Public Prosecutor has been appointed and the accused persons are also represented by lawyers therefore, there is no impediment in the charge being framed immediately and the trial proceeding. 6. Looking to the voluminous nature of the matter, the trial Court to endeavour to dispose of the trial as far as possible by 31/1/2012. Petition disposed of with above directions. JUDGE JUDGE chute