1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2638 OF 2011 Mrs.Sumitra S.Banerjee .. Petitioner V/s Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Rekha Musale i/by Mr.D.V.Sutar for the petitioner (present in morning session and absent in afternoon session). Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP for Respondent No.5. Mr.D.N.Salvi for Respondent No.1. Mr.Rajesh Kumar, P.I., C.B.I. Present. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE: 23rd December, 2011. P.C.: 1. This matter was called out in the morning session when request for adjournment was made by the counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner desires to discharge the present Advocate on record. The learned Counsel was told that the Court has no difficulty if the petitioner is interested in changing the Advocate, but attention of the counsel was invited to the order dated 07.12.2011 wherein it is mentioned that no request for adjournment or keeping back the matter at the instance of the petitioner on any count will be entertained on future dates. 2 2. Notwithstanding such peremptory order, we informed the Counsel that the Court would show one more indulgence. The matter was therefore kept back to be taken up after the lunch break. It is noticed that in the past the officer of the Respondents/ Investigating Agency had remained present in Court. Thus, every adjournment has resulted in causing loss to the public exchequer, as well as loss of time of the Investigation Officer in attending the Court proceedings which he could have otherwise utilised for some other official work. 3. When the matter is called out after the lunch break, none appears for the petitioner. As a result, we dismiss this petition while placing on record that if the request for restoration of the petition is made by the petitioner, that will be considered only if the petitioner compensates for the loss caused to the public exchequer. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)