1 23.11-revn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 23 OF 2011 Mahesh Balasaheb Thakoor. ... Applicant. V/s. State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. B.A.Aloor for the applicant. A.S.Shitole, APP for the State. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED : 4th August 2011. P.C. : The main contention of the applicant is that before framing the charge, an opportunity of hearing was not given to the applicant. 2. The perusal of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 11th February 2011 would give an entire chronology as to how the matter was proceeded. The learned Judge has found that every attempt was made to protract the trial. It has been further found that when the charge was framed Smt.M.B.Salunkhe, junior of Shri B.A.Aloor, learned counsel for the applicant was present in the court hall. However, after framing of charge, she informed the Court that she was only asked by her senior to sit in the court and take notes of arguments of Shri Harshad Nimbalkar who was appearing as Special Public Prosecutor. If the senior advocate appointed on behalf of advocate appearing for the party does not have time to attend the Court, the Court is not expected to wait endlessly for framing the charges. 3. No case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Revision application is, therefore, rejected. (B.R.GAVAI, J.)