1 77.11-apl IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO.77 OF 2011 Sambhaji Sadashiv Babar ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharshtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr.Manoj Mohite for the applicant. None for respondents. CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 2, 2011 PC. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant. An unfortunate event has taken place while evidence was recorded in Case No. 12762/SS/2008 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court at Ballard Pier, Mumbai. The observations of the learned Judge as reflected in paragraph No.5 in cross-examination of P.W. No.1 Pankaj Patel illustrates that the Advocate representing the case initially objected for production of documents. The learned Judge did not concede, the petitioner anxitiously called the Counsel for witness P.W.No.1 and browsed the documents, to his utter surprise that it was an unsigned document. The applicant again raised objection before the learned Judge, that it is an unsigned document. 2. This approach of the applicant irked the learned Judge and he made his observations to the conduct of the applicant as un- professional or unbecoming. These observations, were made not 2 77.11-apl deliberately however, would certainly hurt the feelings of the applicant, as the applicant is a practicing Advocate of very good standing. In the set of above situation, the observations recorded in the evidence of P.W.No.1 branding the applicant as un-professional or unbecoming are deleted. The application is allowed to the extent as above. The Court has not expressed any opinion on the affair that has taken place before the learned Judge. (K.U.CHANDIWAL,J.)