... 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3581 OF 2006 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3581 OF 2006 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3581 OF 2006 ........................................................... OFFICE NOTES, OFFICE MEMORANDUM OF CORAM, APPEARANCES, COURT’S COURT’S OR JUDGES ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS ORDERS AND REGISTRAR’S ORDERS ........................................................... None appears Applicant. Ms S.V.Gajare, A.P.P for the Respondent. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 29, 2006. DATE : NOVEMBER 29, 2006. DATE : NOVEMBER 29, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. None for the Applicant. This Application is filed by the Applicant through Jail. The Applicant is an accused in Sessions Case No.532 of 2004 which is pending in the Sessions Court at Mumbai. Prayer in this Application is for expediting the hearing of the case. The Applicant is also praying that the Trial Court be directed to take up the case for final hearing on day to day basis. 2. All pending criminal cases in which accused are in jail are required to be tried expeditiously. However, the cases must be ... 2 ... decided chronologically unless in a given case the circumstances are exceptional. 3. There is nothing on record to show that older cases in which accused are in jail are not pending in the court in which case of the Applicant is pending. 4. The concerned court is bound to decide all the cases where accused are in jail as expeditiously as possible but in chronological order. No further direction can be given. Application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE