: 1 : SD IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.2386 OF 2007 PETITION NO.2386 OF 2007 PETITION NO.2386 OF 2007 Kiran Pramod Nandurkar ...Petitioner V/s. Jule Solapur Nagari Sahakari . Patsanstha Maryadit, Solapur & . Anr. ...Respondents Mr.P.G. Sarada, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Ms.S.D. Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATE DATE DATE : 2ND MAY, 2008. : 2ND MAY, 2008. : 2ND MAY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Solapur refusing to accept the process fee offered by the petitioner-accused for issuance of summons to his own witnesses. The background facts are as under. 2. By 10th October, 2007 the prosecution completed recording of evidence. Even the statement of the accused under section 313 was recorded. On 10th October, 2007, the petitioner-accused moved an application seeking witness summons for eight defence witnesses. : 2 : But admittedly the required processing fees was not deposited. The case was adjourned to 21st November, 2007. On that day the petitioner-accused sought permission to deposit the process fee. The learned Magistrate refused indulgence giving clear reason that on the earlier date the learned Magistrate had himself reminded the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner-accused to deposit the process fee for the witness summons and despite such directions, the fee was not deposited. 3. The question is whether the situation calls for intervention under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The answer is in negative. It is clear that the learned Magistrate was well within his rights to reject the request. This, however, does not mean that I am upholding the decision of the learned Magistrate on merits. Due to the impugned order probably the petitioner-accused would not be able to examine his witnesses. This also is my guess. On the adjourned date the petitioner-accused might keep his witnesses present and record their evidence. The situation of the Trial is completely in control : 3 : of the learned Magistrate. 4. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere using the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence the petition stands dismissed. [A.V. [A.V. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] NIRGUDE, J.] NIRGUDE, J.]