- 1 - 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 CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.179 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.179 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.179 OF 2008 IN IN IN CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.546 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.546 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.546 OF 2005 Amar Jagdish Narayan Chaurasia & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.A.M.Saraogi for the petitioners Mr.J.P.Yagnik A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : AUGUST 4,2008 : AUGUST 4,2008 : AUGUST 4,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocate for the Applicant and the learned A.P.P for the first Respondent. Perused the Confidential Report dated 28th July 2008 submitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai. 2. This application has been filed by the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition. The criminal Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the proceeding of the case pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai. Prayer (b) in the Writ Petition is for stay of the pending Sessions Case before the Sessions Court. On 3rd March 2005, a notice was issued by this court to the second Respondent and ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) was granted. Ad-interim relief granted earlier was extended from time to time and on 23rd June 2005, Writ Petition was heard for admission. This court issued rule after hearing the Advocate for the Applicant and the Advocate for the second Respondent and granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b). It appears that after - 2 - grant of stay by this court, formal dates were fixed in the case pending before the Sessions Court. On 10th June 2008, when the case appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, an order was passed issuing non bailable warrant to all the accused including the Applicant. Bail bonds filed by the Applicant were forfeited and a direction was issued against the Applicant to appear on the next date failing which it will be treated that the Applicant has been absconding. Perusal of the said order dated 10th June 2008 shows that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was made aware about the pendency of the criminal Writ Petition in this Court and grant of ad-interim relief therein. The learned Judge seems to have declined to consider the effect of grant of stay by this Court on the ground that the Advocate appearing for the Applicant could not show the order passed by this Court on or after 7th June 2005 in the criminal Writ Petition. In fact, a reference was made to the order dated 18th January 2008 by which the predecessor of the learned Judge directed the counsel for the Applicant to file an Affidavit on record to show that the Writ Petition has been admitted and the stay has been continued. The learned Judge observed that the said order dated 18th January 2008 has been flouted by the counsel appearing for the Applicant. 3. The learned Judge noted that all the accused have proceeded to Delhi though they were residents of Mumbai. It was observed that the legal duty of filing correct address on - 3 - record was not discharged by the Applicant or his Advocate. On this ground, application for exemption made by the Applicant was rejected and as stated earlier, bail bonds were forfeited. 4. I have perused the report dated 28th July 2008 submitted by the Additional Sessions Judge. He has stated that on 10th June 2006, he noted that there was no noting of the interim stay granted by this Court on 23rd June 2005. He has stated that he was under a bonafide belief that no stay was in operation and warrant was issued by him only with the object of making the case ready for final hearing. He stated that as regards the default on the part of the staff, he has submitted a report to the learned Principal Judge 5. Though the report submitted by the learned Judge deserves to be accepted,it must be noted here that the order of this court granting stay ought to have been noted on record by making a necessary entry in the Roznama of the Case. As pointed out in the earlier order dated 16th July 2008, a writ of the interim order passed by this Court was received by the Sessions Court on 14th July 2005. It is surprising that an entry of stay has not been taken in the Roznama of the case. The learned Principal Judge of the City Civil Court will have to look into this aspect and issue necessary directions to ensure that the entries of the orders of stay of proceedings passed by this court are made in the Roznama of the concerned - 4 - cases so that this sort of situation can be avoided. 6. Though stay all further proceedings of the case is granted by this court, it can be well understood if the case is placed on board after periodical intervals with a view to ascertain whether stay granted by this court continues to operate. In fact, the practice adopted by the courts of fixing formal dates in stayed cases is proper so that once it is noticed that stay is vacated, the matter can be made ready for final disposal. However, on such formal dates, such harsh orders cannot be passed by the trial courts when proceedings of the case are stayed by this court. 7. In the circumstances, order dated 10th June 2008 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, order dated 10th June 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is quashed and set aside. Application is disposed of. 8. The report of the learned Judge shall be resealed and kept on record. No further acation is called for. The report is accepted. 9. True copies of this order be forwarded to the learned Judge as well as the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court. 10. If the Writ Petition No.546 of 2005 is ready for final hearing, the same shall be added to the final hearing board on - 5 - 20th August 2008. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE