1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 914. APPLN/1101/2011 RAJUKHAN @ AZARKHAN ABBAS [Criminal] KHAN PATEL AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF MAHARASHTRA In APEAL/213/1999 WITH APEAL/140/2011 MUKHTARKHAN ABBASKHAN PATEL V/S THE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA WITH APEAL/213/1999 RAJUKHAN @ AZARKHAN ABBAS KHAN PATEL AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF MAHARASHTRA WITH APPLN/1128/2011 MUKHTARKHAN ABBASKHAN PATEL V/S THE STATE OF MAH In APEAL/213/1999 -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, Adv., Mrs. Sadhana Jadhav, Adv., for respective parties. Mr. V.H.Dighe, APP for State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:24/3/2011 1. Heard. By order dt.24th Jan., 2011, noticing absence of the Counsel representing the appellant, non bailable warrant was directed to be issued, returnable on 15th Feb.,2011. This Court recorded on 1st March, 2011 2 that the said orders dt.24th Jan.,2011, are not adhered to by investigator in executing N.B.W. This resulted in calling the Police Officer of the Police Station, Georai, dist. Beed, on 3rd March, 2011. Thereafter, as a last chance, three weeks time was granted to the concerned to comply earlier order and matter was adjourned to this date. The accused/applicant Rajukhan @ Azarkhan Abbaskhan Patel and Mukhtarkhan Abbaskhan Patel, by their applications have urged to recall the orders of non bailable warrant, referred above. It is submitted that the appeal had gone unattended inadvertently and, therefore, present applicants inspite of due diligence could not prosecute the matter, due to inevitable circumstances prevailent at that time. So far as applicant Mukhtarkhan is concerned, it is informed that he is patient of chronic headache with vertigo and intermittently, was admitted in the hospital. Medical certificate, supporting his contention, issued on 28.2.2011 is annexed. 2. The laxity on the part of the 3 appellants in prosecuting the appeal is writ large. Counsel also did not bother to remain present whenever the matter was called and, consequently, in the appeals of 1999, after calling the Counsel repeatedly, the matter is adjourned time to time. 3. Considering the above aspects of the matter and the inaction on the part of the Police Officer to execute the warrant in time, the directions of issuance of non bailable warrant are recalled as it is not yet executed. The accused/applicants to individually pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One thousand) in this Court, within three days. Both the applications allowed to the extent as above. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE AGP/1101-11crapl