IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 478 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 478 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 478 OF 2008 Kundlik Appa Tamkhade .... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent. Mr. K.S.Patil for the applicant. Mr. J.P.Yagnik APP for State. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 25TH MARCH, 2008 DATED; 25TH MARCH, 2008 DATED; 25TH MARCH, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 2. By this application, two fold reliefs are sought. (1) For transfer of the Sessions Case from one court to another, and (2) for quashing of an order dated 5-2-2008. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are not pressing the prayer for transfer of the case and thus the said prayer need not be considered. In view of this statement, the petition, to the extent of prayer clause (b) is concerned, is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The present applicants are real brothers who are facing charges under sections 302, 307 read with 34 of IPC. The applicants are in custody since 17-2-2005 in conection with the present case. As the advocate engaged by the applicants was not appearing before the Sessions Judge, the Sessions Judge appointed an advocate from the panel of the advocates by extending legal assistantce to conduct the case for the applicant. The present applicant have opposed the appointment of the counsel from legal aid and on the contrary requested the Sessions Judge for granting sometime to engage an advocate. It is stated in the application that the son of applicant no.1, who is a defence personal is presently stationed at Ambala. He has been informed and instructed by the applicants to arrange for engaging an advocate who will defend the present applicants in the said case. The trial court has rejected the application by order dated 5-2-2008 and aggreived thereby the present application has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial need to be deferred for a priod of three months from today so that the applicant can engage an advocate of their choice. It is then contended that no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the state for the reason that the applicants are in custody and on account of deferring the trial for a period of three moths, if anyone is to be prejudiced, it will be the present applicant. The submission is that in the interest of justice, the trial be deferred for three months to engage an advocate of their choice to defend them. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant has stated that if and in case the applicant fails to arrange for an advocate of their choice, within the period of three months from today, the Sessions Judge would be free to proceed with the trial. The learned APP submits in all fairness that he does not oppose the prayer for adjourning the trial for a period of three moths. Hence I direct that the trial shall stand adjourned for a period of three months so as to enable the applicants to engage an advocate of their choice to defend them. The Sessions judge shall resume the trial after a period of three months. Rule made absolsute in the above terms. Criminal Application is disposed of. ....