1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No. 542/2009 Gowardhan Shivram Ingale ..vs.. State of Maharashtra --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S. A. Mohta, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D. B. Yengal, A.P.P. for respondent-State. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED :- 30 th SEPTEMBER,2009 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Mohta for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has filed Regular Criminal Appeal No. 21/2007 in the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Akola. During pendency of that appeal, the petitioner has filed application under Section 311 read with Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for examining certain witnesses at the stage of disposal of the appeal. This application is opposed by the State. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Akola has, by order dated 15.01.2009 tagged the said application to the main appeal. 3. Thereafter, the present petitioner has filed an application for setting aside the judgment and conviction of 2 the lower Court and remanding the matter before the trial Court for trial in Complaint Case No. 515/2007. The present petition is filed while the appeal is yet to be disposed of on merits. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Mohta could not give proper explanation as to why the second application dated 27.08.2009 is filed. Since the appeal is pending before the learned Principal Judge, I reserve my comments on the maintainability of the said application. Learned Advocate Mr. Mohta states that the case is posted for judgment on 05.10.2009 and the learned Principal Sessions Judge has not heard the petitioner on both the applications. However, no such averment is made in the petition. 5. A grievance is made before this Court that the learned Judge has not considered the application under Section 311 filed on 15.01.2009. 6. Since, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Akola is seized of the entire appeal as well as both the applications, it is not possible for this Court to say that the learned Principal Sessions Judge is going to reject both the applications. Undoubtedly, the learned Principal Sessions 3 Judge will have to perform his job within the parameters of his jurisdiction. It is expected that he will do so. In my view, this petition is filed at the premature stage. Hence, it is required to be dismissed. 7. In my view, filing of this petition itself was absolutely unwarranted and that is how I am inclined to direct that the petitioner shall pay costs of Rs. 3000/- to be paid to High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Nagpur. Costs will have to be paid on or before 08.10.2009. 8. In view of above, following order is passed to dismiss the writ petition. The petition is dismissed. The petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 3000/- to the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Nagpur on or before 08.10.2009. The matter be kept for orders on 09.10.2009 for perusal of the receipt of the amount of costs. JUDGE kahale