IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3272 OF 2009 Deepak Ramchandra Naik ..... ..... ...Petitioner. V/s Birudev Shivram Vadgar & Anr. ..... ... Respondents. Mr.S.V.Kotwal, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.Ashwin R. Karadnis, Adv. for the respondent No.1. Ms.R.V.Newton, APP for the State. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 8th March, 2010. PC: By the present petitioner the petitioner challenges the order dated 16.9.09 below Ex.44 in criminal case No.48/04 thereby directing the matter to proceed without cross examination of the witnesses. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the date in question the accused and his advocate were in genuine difficulty. It is therefore submitted that in the circumstances such a harsh order which totally takes away the defence of the applicant ought not to have been passed. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary submits that entire conduct of the accused will show that he has been negligent in defending his case and therefore no interference is warranted. 4. I find that for the ground of accused remaining absent the order directing the trial to proceed without cross was not justified. In so far as the prejudice that is caused to the complainant is 1 concerned same could have been compensated by imposing certain costs. In that view of the matter rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c). However it is made clear that on the next date of trial the petitioner and his counsel would remain present and proceed with cross examination of witnesses of the complainant. Taking into consideration that the complaint is of the year 2002 learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the complaint as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from today. 5. The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5000/- before the trial court towards costs of the respondent-complainant. Said amount to be deposited within a period of four weeks from today. On such amount being deposited the respondent- complainant shall be at liberty to withdraw the same. 8.3.2010. 2