1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No. 47 OF 2010 Ramanuj Ramkaran Tripathi v. The State (C.B.I) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's and Registrar's orders orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S.J. Khandalkar Advocate for the Petnr. Mr. S.B. Ahirkar Advocate for the Respondent. ..... CORAM: A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 24 th FEBRUARY,_2010. This application is directed against the order made by the trial court rejecting the prayer for recalling witness Khalid Baig for cross-examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that Khalid Baig is Investigating Officer and earlier he had filed C.W.P. 647 of 2009 in which this Court allowed him to examine two witnesses. According to learned counsel, while the said criminal writ petition was pending in this Court, Khalid Baig was examined by the trial Court on 27.11.009. He therefore submits that the petitioner should be allowed to cross- examine Khalid Baig. Per contra, Mr.Ahirkar learned counsel for the 2 respondent, opposed the writ petition and argued that this Court had permitted examination of two witnesses and therefore sanctity of the said order cannot be disturbed at the instance of the petitioner who did not cross-examine the witness Khalid. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition. I have gone through the judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No. 647 of 2009 rendered on 19.12.2009. Perusal thereof shows that C.B.I. had given no objection for recalling the two witnesses, namely Baburaj Pawar and Sanjay Agrawal, specifically named by the petitioner. It is on this statement and with the consent of learned counsel for C.B.I the petition was disposed of only in relation to the two witnesses. If the witness Khalid was examined on 27.11.2009 nothing prevented the petitioner from mentioning such fact to this Court since the said writ petition was disposed of on 19.12.2009. It is seen from the deposition of Khalid Baig that Advocate Meshram for the accused was repeatedly asked to cross-examine but he declined to cross-examine. Mr.Meshram had filed Vakalatnama for the petitioner/accused and had appeared. He should have cross-examined the witness. The order rejecting the application for adjournment is not under challenge. This Court permitted examination of only two witnesses and sanctity of the said judgment cannot be touched. For all these reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. Writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE 3 /TA/