1 (crim appln 2897 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2897 OF 2010 Mr.Vivek Talwar ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Ms.R.R. Dhuru for Applicant Mr. D.R. More -APP for the State Mr. Prakash R. Shennai for Respondent No.2 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant, the learned APP for the State, and Respondent No.2 appearing in person. 2. The grievance of the Applicant is that the witness summons has been issued by Respondent No.2 asking him to remain present and give evidence. It is submitted that the reasons why the Applicant is being examined as a witness has not been mentioned in the summons. Second grievance is that in another complaint, according to the learned Counsel for the Applicant, 2 (crim appln 2897 of 2010) the Applicant has appeared in the Court for last two years and this is an unnecessary harassment. 3. Perusal of the complaint would indicate that the reasons why the Complainant wants to make the Applicant as a witness and hence there is no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Learned Magistrate and the Sessions Court. However, after the Applicant appears before the learned Magistrate, the Magistrate shall complete his recording of evidence as expeditiously as possible. Liberty is granted to the Applicant to apply. 4. The Learned Magistrate shall not issue bailable and non-bailable warrants against the Applicant after he appears before the Court. 5. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)