WP.2423-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 2423 OF 2010 Jayesh N. Joshi ...Petitioner Vs. Shantaram V. Karnik & Anr. ...Respondents *** Mr. Manoj J. Bhatt i/b Reshma R. Pol, for the Petitioner. Mr. I. S. Thacker & Ashok Shah & Khitija Watkar, for the Respondent No.1. Mrs. A. S. Pai, APP for Respondent No.2. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : OCTOBER 1, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.1. The petitioner is original accused. He is aggrieved by the order dated 17th July, 2010 passed by the Sessions Court, who was pleased to allow the revision application filed by the respondent No.1 herein, permitting him to examine three prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that the case is pending for a long time and after the evidence was closed by the prosecution in 2008, almost two years thereafter this application WP.2423-10 - 2 - has been filed for examining the three witnesses. It is submitted that only reason why these witnesses are to be examined is to protract the trial. 2. He also submitted that application for recalling of prosecution witness was made by the accused. The learned Magistrate was pleased to reject the said application which was upheld by the Sessions Court. It is submitted that the Sessions Court has not taken into consideration that the applicant has not given any reasons while allowing the revision application of the complainant. 3. I have perused the impugned order. It is true that in 2008 prosecution has closed the evidence. However, in the interest of justice, the application was filed for the purpose of examining three witnesses. The Court has to consider whether in the interest of justice such permission should be granted or not. The Sessions Court has by a well reasoned order has given cogent reasons why the application filed by the prosecution should be allowed. In my view, no case is made out for interference with the order passed by the Sessions Court. Hence, the submissions made on behalf of the petition cannot be sustained. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. 4. The trial Court, however, shall ensure that the trial is expedited and decide the case as expeditiously as possible. If an WP.2423-10 - 3 - application is made by the accused for seeking production of documents of the cases which are pending in this Court, adequate time may be given to the accused for securing the certified copies of the said documents. [ V. M. KANADE J.]