bsb 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 CRI. CRI. CRI. APPLICATION NO. 761 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 761 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 761 OF 2008 Bhagatraj G. Ahuja ... Appellant v/s 1. State of Maharashtra & 2 ors. ... Respondents Applicant in person present. Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1 State. Mr.Umesh R. Mankapure for the respondent No.2. Mr.A.M.Kulkarni for the respondent No.3. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 16TH JUNE, 2008 16TH JUNE, 2008 16TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. This application has been filed for a direction to the Sessions Court "for clubbing the two accused to be tried together in one common single trial under Sessions Case No.60/2001 as both the accused are involved in the same and common incident which cannot be separated from one from another." 2. The applicant who appear in person submits that despite the order of this Court passed in Criminal Revision Application No.283 of 2004 directing the Sessions Court to decide the complaint on merits, the Sessions Court has ignored the order and thereby flouted the orders of this Court. He submits that in such 2 circumstances, it is necessary for this Court to direct the Sessions Court to abide by the order passed by this Court. 3. Mr.Mankapure, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 i.e. accused No.2 in Sessions Case No.60 of 2001, submits that the accused has been acquitted on 13.6.2008 and, therefore, the application has become infructuous. When confronted with this, the applicant in person submitted that he had preferred an application to the Sessions Court on 11.6.2008 pointing out that the present application was pending and was fixed on 17.6.2008 and, therefore, no orders be passed till the High Court hears the application. The applicant, therefore, submits that the Sessions Court has acted hastily by passing the orders of the acquittal without waiting for this Court’s orders in the present application. 4. In my view, the application has become infructuous in view of the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court. In the event, the applicant is aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Sessions Court or the procedure adopted by it, he may adopt appropriate remedies available to him. 3 6. Application rejected.