1 Cri.WP No.1131/2010 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1131/2010. ( Smital alias Dolly d/o Sudhakar Patil and Anr.Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. RS Deshmukh, Adv. for Petitioner; Mr. VH Dighe, APP for Resp.Nos. 1 & 2; Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, Adv. For Resp.Nos. 3 to 6. *** CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 19 th April, 2011. ... 1) Heard. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. 2) The challenge is to the order of learned Sessions Judge dated 7.8.2010, wherein he directed the Sessions Case Nos.125/2007 and 137/2009, to be transmitted to Court No.1 as charge was already framed. 3) Reading the text of the application and the order, it is apparent, it was not a withdrawal on any ground, but it was on technical aspect as inadvertently, in spite of charge being framed, the matters were shown to have assigned to other Court. I do not see any error on the part of the learned Judge in passing the impugned order dated 7.8.2010 in Criminal Misc. Application No.35/2010 4) By Application (Exhibit-66) before the learned Sessions Judge, the complainant Sudhakar Daulat Patil urged on 27.9.2010 to – adjourn the matter as he was not keeping well. It was based on his mental state of affairs not keeping well, as it is natural as the matter revolves to the affairs with his daughter and two Sessions cases are to be attended by him. However, the learned Sessions Judge also informs and has recorded that the mental condition is not tangible and cannot be assessed. He 2 Cri.WP No.1131/2010 did not desire to take a chance. However, he expected to adjourn the matter, by saddling costs of Rs.3,000/- and also fees of learned AP Rs.1250/- to go to the State. 5) I quite see that it was noticeable laxity on the part of the complainant in prosecuting the matter. The learned Sessions Judge was forced to pass the impugned order. However, since the learned APP, representing the State, was not marked only the said Sessions Case, whereby the State would be a loser of its fees of Rs.1250/-, consequently, the learned Sessions Judge should not have directed the complainant to pay fess of learned APP, amounting to Rs.1250/-. To this extent, the impugned order calls for interference and it is accordingly set aside. The order of imposing the cots of Rs.3,000/- below Exhibit-66 is confirmed. The Stay to the proceedings is vacated. 6) Needless to indicate, the learned Sessions Judge being aware of earlier orders in Criminal Application No.762/2010 dated 2nd March, 2010, directing the learned Sessions Judge to dispose of the Sessions Trial within a period of two months effective from 2nd March, 2010, he will adhere to the time schedule, if it is extended by a subsequent communication. 7) Rule is made partly absolute in the aforesaid terms. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/