* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4459 OF 2008 Peerzada Imtiyaz Nabi .....Applicant V/s. 1. The Saraswat Co-op Bank Ltd 2. The State of Maharashtra .....Respondents ======== Mr.Ashok Bhatia, adv.for applicant. Mr.Prasad Borkar, adv.for respondent no.2. Mr.D.R.More, A.P.P. for state. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 5TH JANUARY, 2009. P.C.: 1. This application is to challenge correctness and legality of the order dated 7th November, 2008 passed by the Sessions Court, Mumbai rejecting an application filed by the applicant to recall a witness by name Arif Hudda and for his examination and cross-examination to be recorded by the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 44th Court, Andheri. The application was presented in the appeal proceedings being Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 2008. 2. Mr.Bhatia, learnd counsel for applicant submits that * 2 * Arif Hudda could not be examined as his witness immediately after recording of the statement under Section 311 Cr.P.C. because he happened to be absconding. That position has not changed till date. The whereabouts of Mr.Arif Hudda are still not known. The applicant is also unable to give his present address or make any statement as regards certainty of his availability. Learned counsel for respondent states that Mr.Arif Hudda is still absconding and is wanted in other cases. Mr.Bhatia, then requests that the applicant be permitted to examine some other directors of Aamir Motors Leasing Ltd instead of Arif Hudda. Such an application made for the first time across the bar cannot be considered by this court. 3. I have perused the impugned order. No fault can be found with the same. Even if the application filed by the applicant were to be granted, it would only be an order in the void, as the witness Arif Hudda is not available for examination. Hence, the order. O R D E R 4. The application is dismissed. [JUDGE]