1 APL 946.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 946 OF 2011 Mr. Kirit Kantilal Parmar. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Ms. Revati Mohite-Dere for the Applicant. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 17th OCTOBER 2011. P.C. :- Heard learned Counsel for the Accused/Applicant. She submits that there being an application below Exhibit 140 filed by the Accused/Applicant – Kirit Parmar on 15.7.2008 without passing any order on the said Application, the charge is framed. A report was called from the learned Sessions Judge dealing with the Sessions Case No.371 of 2001. The report explicitly demonstrate the order dated 12.5.2010 which reads as under :- “Read the application pending since 15.7.2008, thus if on next date accused remained absent alongwith Advocate then this application will be filed.” 2 APL 946.11.sxw 2. The report also informs that the matter was adjourned to 12.5.2010, 24.5.2010, 5.6.2010, 10.6.2010, 19.6.2010, 4.8.2010, 2.9.2010, 20.10.2010, 16.12.2010, 17.2.2011, 18.4.2011 to 31.5.2011. The Accused protracted the matter. 3. Considering these aspects of the matter, the theory that has been projected that Application below Exhibit 140 is not yet decided and charge is framed is untenable. The learned Judge certainly accommodated the accused and thereafter, conditional order would naturally operate. Application lacks merit. Dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)