((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1950 OF 2009 Rupesh Ramchandra Chavan Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent A.B.Borkar for applicant. S.S.Pednekar, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 04th May 2009 PC : 1. Rule. Learned APP waives service for the respondent. Considering the nature of controversy, the application is immediately taken up for final hearing. 2. The applicant is facing trial before the learned Special Judge for the offence punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On 8.4.2009 when PW-4 Vinayak Shivram Tilekar was in the witness box, an application for adjournment was made on behalf of the applicant by the advocate engaged by him on the ground that he was busy in two Sessions cases in the Sessions Court, at ((-2-)) Kolhapur. The said application was rejected. It appears that on the same day another application was made by the applicant at Exhibit-83 in which it was pointed out that the advocate appointed by the applicant had authorised another advocate to cross examine PW-4 and therefore the said advocate be permitted to cross examine PW-4 after setting aside the order passed in the morning session. The said application was rejected by the learned Special Judge by passing an order on the same day. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant on the instructions of the applicant states that if the impugned orders are set aside, the applicant or his advocate will cross examine PW-4 on the date on which PW-4 appears before the learned Special Judge. He states that the applicant undertakes to this Court that he will not seek any adjournment on any ground for cross examining PW-4. The learned APP opposed the application by pointing out the conduct of the applicant of repeatedly seeking adjournments. His submission is that the learned Judge was justified in passing the orders which he has passed. ((-3-)) 4. I have considered the submissions. Recording of evidence of PW-4 commenced on 18.9.2007. Recording of his examination in chief was completed on 28.7.2008. It appears that on more than one occasion thereafter adjournments were sought on behalf of the applicant. On some occasions the witness was not present. Considering the conduct of the applicant as reflected from the Roznama it is very difficult to find fault with the harsh view taken by the learned Special Judge. However, the applicant is facing charges under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and therefore a last opportunity deserves to be granted to the applicant to cross examine the said witness. 5. The applicant is present in the Court. Through his advocate he has given an undertaking that as and when PW-4 appears before the learned Special Judge, cross examination of PW-4 will be made and no adjournment will be sought on any ground. 6. Hence, I pass following order :- ((-4-)) (a) The impugned orders passed below application at Exhibits-80 and 83 in Special Case No.1 of 2005 are quashed and set aside; (b) The respondent will keep PW-4 present before the learned Special Judge for undergoing cross examination. The undertaking of the applicant referred to above is accepted; (c) As and when PW-4 remains present before the learned Special Judge, the applicant and/or his advocate will proceed with the cross examination of the said witness without seeking any adjournment; (d) The application is allowed in the above terms. (A.S.OKA, J.)