1 (CRWP1935/2008) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1935 OF 2008 Dr. Jagdish Sharma .... Petitioner. V/s State of Maharasthra & Ors. .... Respondents. Mr. R.U. Singh for the Petitioner. Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP for the State. Mr. Jagdishkumar Gupta with Vinod Sharma for Respondent No.2. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 1st September, 2010 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate who has rejected the application for recalling the witness for further examination which order was confirmed by the Sessions Court in the revision application filed by him. The Trial Court as well as the Sessions Court have given cogent reasons for rejecting the 2 (CRWP1935/2008) application of the complainant. Both the Courts below have observed that the complaint was filed in the year 2000 and the process was issued on 3/3/2003 and, thereafter, the matter was adjourned on number of occasions. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the adjournment was taken by consent and, as such, the complainant could not be held to be responsible for prolonging the trial. It is not possible to accept this submission. I have also perused the roznama. It is apparent that the matter has remained pending for a long time and after the matter was closed for arguments, the application was filed for recalling the complainant for leading evidence before the charge. 4. In my view, this is not a fit case where this Court should interfere with the orders passed by both the courts below while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 3 (CRWP1935/2008)