((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1747 OF 2009 Jagdish s/o Kashiram Aawant Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent C.P.Sengaonkar for applicant. Rajesh More, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 07th May 2009 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant is facing a trial before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd Court, at Andheri. The applicant is facing the trial under sections 465, 468, 471, 419, 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. An application was made by the applicant before the learned Magistrate for expediting the trial. The case is of the year 2001. The said application was rejected by the learned Magistrate. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that though the applicant is enlarged on bail, being a public servant, he is deprived of various benefits due to pendency of the trial. 2. In normal course the ground made out in ((-2-)) this application is certainly a good ground to expedite the trial. But in this case, the learned Magistrate has noted that the total pendency of the cases in his Court is 26,000. While rejecting the application for giving priority to the trial, the learned Magistrate has observed thus:- "It is submitted that Ld.Counsel for the applicant accused being public servant, the case requires to decide expeditiously. In this regard, it requires to mention here. that total pendency of cases is near about 26,000. Besides this aspect, day to day work entrusted to this court including remand of say notices, bail applications, property return applications, application pertaining to domestic violence etc. is heavy. This court while deciding the matter maintains the factor of age of proceeding and top priority requires to be given to the cases pertaining to under trial prisoners, so in such situation the request in regard to early disposal by breaking the above referred priority cannot be considered. Hence, application stands rejected." 3. In view of the above observations it is difficult to find fault with the learned Magistrate when he declined to give priority to the case of the applicant. In the circumstances, it is not possible to issue any direction in this application for expediting the case. The application is accordingly disposed of. ((-3-)) (A.S.OKA, J.)