1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1519 OF 2009 Smt.Nita Raj Mirani ...Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra ...Respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JUNE 17, 2009 P.C. . Not on board. Taken on board. 1 Petition is filed by the widow of the alleged victim of the offence. The grievance is that though P.W.14 who is stated to be the last prosecution witness was present before the Sessions Court from time to time adjournments were sought by the accused and therefore his evidence could not be recorded. The grievance is that in view of large number adjournments now the witness may not appear thereby causing prejudice to the prosecution case. It was contended that only on the request made by the Advocate for the accused, the said witness was recalled whose evidence was already recorded. The prayer is for fixing time bound schedule for disposal of the case. 2 Considering the large pendency of cases in the trial court, time bound scheduled cannot be fixed. However, Roznama shows that P.W.14 had repeatedly appeared before the Sessions Court earlier and the case was adjourned either on the ground that the Advocate for the accused was not available or by consent of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Advocate for the accused. The learned Judge is bound to look into this aspect. The witness has repeatedly appeared and has gone 2 back without recording of his cross examination. The learned Judge is bound to ensure that prosecution witness is not inconvenienced because of the adjournments sought by the parties. Though time bound schedule cannot be fixed, the learned Judge is bound to ensure that the recording of evidence of the said witness which is in progress for a long time is completed as expeditiously as possible. 3 Petition is disposed of. JUDGE