1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No. 209/2010 ( Vernon Gonsalves and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mr. S.P. Gadling, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. T.A.Mirza, APP for the respondents. CORAM : MRS. V.K.TAHILRAMANI & P.B.VARALE, JJ DATE : 14.3.2011 The petitioners are facing trials pending before various different courts. Thirteen cases are pending before the Sessions Court at Gadchiroli, Gondia and Mumbai. The cases are mostly under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Indian Explosives Act. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they have not been produced before the trial court and hence trials are not progressing, hence, their right to a speedy trial is affected. As far as this aspect is concerned, the learned APP has pointed out that as the cases are 2` pending before different courts all over the State, it is very difficult to continuously produce the accused before the different trial Courts. Hence, an application has been preferred by the State for transferring the cases to one Sessions Court. The said application is pending before the learned Single Judge. 3. The learned APP has also produced a chart which shows that in fact the applicant has been produced before the trial Court and his contention that in the last two years he has not been produced before any court is totally incorrect. The chart shows that he was produced before the trial court in the cases relating to Crime no. 10/07 42 times and in the case relating to Crime Nos. 29 /07 and 32/07 on 10 occasions. On perusal of the chart, it is noticed that in all the cases the petitioner has in fact been produced before the trial court. Looking to the report produced by the learned APP which shows that in fact the petitioner was produced before the trial court on number of occasions in these 13 cases, we find no merit in the contention 3` that the petitioner has not been produced at all before the trial court. Hence, We are of the opinion that no case is made out for grant of compensation. 4. An application has already been moved by the State for transfer of the cases to one court which according to the State will facilitate expeditious disposal of all the cases. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, no further orders are necessary at this stage. Hence, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE patle 4`