1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 314 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 315 OF 2009 Ashok Khandwala ..Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. S. V. Marwadi i/b. Mr. S. P. Narkar for Petitioner. Mrs. R. V. Newton – APP for State. Mr. A. H. H. Ponda for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1 The petitioner has challenged the orders of the trial court dated 1st October 2004 refusing permission to recall the witness i.e. complainant for cross-examination. After the orders of the trial court the petitioner took the matters in Revisions but the Sessions Court dismissed Revisions on 17th October 2005. Thereafter the petitioner has filed the present petitions for questioning the aforesaid orders on 2nd February 2009. In the meanwhile the petitioner had filed another writ petition No. 1030 of 2008 claiming 2 altogether different relief, namely, dismissal of the complaint itself on the ground that the respondent – complainant has obtained a decree for a sum of money including dishonoured cheques. That petition was dismissed on 18th September, 2008. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that time was taken up in filing the aforesaid writ petition and that is why the present petitions were not filed. This is not a justified reason at all. Even after the dismissal of the earlier writ petition on 18th September, 2008, no steps have been taken. In any case the relief sought in the earlier writ petition is entirely different. It further appears that the only reason why the petitioner wants to recall the earlier witness is for asking questions in relation to the passing of the decree in his favour and against the petitioner, apparently as an extraneous circumstance. 3 Mr. Ponda the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 rightly points out that the petitioner still has opportunity to lead his evidence and it is not necessary to recall a witness whose evidence was closed about five years ago. In the circumstances both the petitions are liable to be dismissed for delay and latches and are accordingly dismissed. 4 At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for 3 continuation of stay which is already granted by this court. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 objects to the grant of stay. However, in the circumstances of the cases, stay is extended for a period of two weeks from today. (S. A. BOBDE, J.)