1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 126 OF 2010 Harinarayan G. Bajaj. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents. Ms. Sonal i/b. Mr. Prasad Das for the Applicant. Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP for Respondent 1. Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Sr. Counsel with G.B. Kedia for Respondent 2. Mr. A.H.H. Ponda for Respondent 3. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 18th JANUARY 2010. P.C. :- The Petitioner before me is Respondent No.2 in Criminal Revision Application Nos.1713 and 1714 of 2009. He is the Original Complainant. This Complainant has filed the complaint bearing No.CC/125/SW/2005 which is on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai. It appears that the Petitioner had engaged one Advocate but on account of his difficulties, he was not present. Thereupon, the Petitioner made an application requesting that his son may be allowed to represent him and argue the matter. That application was objected on the ground that the son is a witness in this case and therefore, the father could not have given him that authority. That objection was over-ruled and the permission was granted which led the accused to file the Revision Application. 2 2. After the matter was argued for some time it has been agreed that the case before the concerned Magistrate is at the stage of framing of charges. The arguments are restricted to that issue only. Therefore, and considering the facts peculiar to this case so also the difficulty faced by the Advocate and the Petitioner – Original Complainant, permission is granted to the Petitioner to file his written arguments. If the said written arguments are filed within a period of one week from today with advance copies to all the accused, the concerned Magistrate to consider them and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The Petition is dismissed subject to above order. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)