1 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 521 OF 2010 Mewada Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. ... Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra . ... Respondent Mr. S.V. Marwadi, i/by M/s. Parab and Associates, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Mandar Goswami, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 P.C. Heard learned counsel. The prosecution desired to examine two witnesses namely B.N. Bodake and Mr. R.S. Rao. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the request. The matter was carried in Criminal Revision No. 1634 of 2009 and by order dated 29.9.2010 the revision was allowed. The order dated 23.11.2009 passed below Annexure B was set aside by allowing the application to examine 2 witnesses subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has furnished copy of the complaint as filed on 15.12.1987. The first witness was examined on 23.12.2005. The cross examination concluded before the charge of the second witness on 28.7.2008. P.W. 2 thereafter remained absent for at least six dates and matter is dragged for no reasons. The learned counsel also submits that Mr. Bodake witness is not even enlisted. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Central Excise submits that though apparently there is delay, however, it is not to the credit of the prosecution but the matter was dragged at the instance of the accused applicant in several courts and he has ensured that it is protracted. The learned counsel also submits that two named witnesses are contacted and available to be examined before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court. Considering the above facts of the matter, it is clear that the prosecution is pending since the year 1987. However, the above events inform that both the accused and the prosecution are to be blamed. The examination of the two witnesses is imperative and essential, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay cannot be 3 faulted with. The present application dismissed. The parties to appear before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 17.11.2011. The cost as directed by the learned Sessions Judge be paid over before the examination of the witnesses. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)