{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3066 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS 1. Pandit Shivaji Jadhav Age-39 years, R/o Musalewadi Tq-Renapur, Dist-Latur 2. Smt.Sangitabai w/o Pandit Jadhav Age-35 years, R/o Musalewadi Tq-Renapur, Dist-Latur 3. Shrimant Jaywant Nikam, Age-44 years, R/o Porbar, Tq-Ambajogai, Dist-Beed 4. Smt.Jaijanti Shrimant Nikam, Age-40 years< R/o Porbar Tq-Ambajogai, Dist-Beed 5. Smt.Gayabai Chatrabhuj Chavan Age-27 years, R/o Garsoli, Tq-Shenpur, Dist-Latur 6. Umabai Dattatraya Chavan Age-25 years< R/o Garsoli Tq-Shenpur, Dist-Latur 7. Dattatraya Maroti Chavan Age-30 years, R/o Garsoli Tq-Shenpur, Dist-Latur RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for the applicant State ....... {2} [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 24th November 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. None appeared on behalf of respondents, though served. 3. By the present application, the applicant State has challenged the order passed below Exhibit-68 by the Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Ambajogai on 25.05.2009. By the said application, the APP had prayed for issuance of summons to the Investigating Officer and the hand writing expert, who has examined the document in question. By order dated 25.05.2009 the application Exhibit-68 came to be rejected. The prosecution was directed to close evidence with a further direction that the statement of the accused u/s 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code be recorded. 4. As the said application came to be rejected on 25.05.2009 it was expected that the trial judge should have recorded statements of the accused u/s 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and should have disposed of the matter. On inquiry, it is informed that inspite of the said order, since last 6 months, the matter is not disposed of, however it is listed for final arguments on 25.11.2009. Considering the reasons, which are given in the said order, that inspite of sufficient opportunity being given to the prosecution to examine the witnesses, the learned APP has not availed the same and hence to curtail the further delay the said {3} application was rejected. Had the trial been concluded after the application came to be rejected, then the trial judge would have been justified, however inspite of rejection of the said application, still the trial is waiting for more than 6 months to get the final verdict. In the premise, without entering into the otherwise merits of the matter, the application is allowed and the order passed below Exhibit-68 dated 25.05.2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge-2 Ambajogai is hereby directed to give opportunity to the prosecution to examine the said two witnesses and thereafter to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms and the application stands disposed of accordingly. 6. Registrar (Judicial) to sent fax message of this order immediately to the Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Ambajogai, for its execution and implementation. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3066-09