IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.226 OF 2008 Shri Navnath Nivruti Chandane .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Balkrishna Joshi for the Petitioner. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 15th July 2008. P.C.: . The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the last date. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused. The petitioner has been charged with offences punishable under section 147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 336, 337, 452, 427, 171(g), 504, 506 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. On 19th December 2007, an application was made on the behalf of the petitioner contending that there was no material available to proceed against the petitioner for an offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It was prayed in the said Application that as the concerned advocate appearing for : 2 : the petitioner was not present, time of four days be granted to the petitioner and till that time order may not be passed committing the case to the Court of Sessions. The said application at Exhibit 143 was rejected by the learned Magistrate on the same day on the ground that said application was not filed earlier by the petitioner. By a separate order, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court. 3. It must be stated here that the learned counsel appearing for the parties agree that no further progress in the case has been made in the Sessions Court and only one date for appearance has been fixed since then. 4. By making an application at Exhibit 143, time of only four days was sought by the petitioner as the advocate for petitioner was not present on that day. The petitioner needed time to point out that there was no case made out to proceed against the petitioner under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In the facts of the case, the learned Judge ought to have granted a reasonable time to the petitioner before passing an order under section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Only on this ground, the impugned orders dated 19th December 2007 need to be quashed and : 3 : set aside. 5. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). (ii) After giving an opportunity of being heard to the advocate for the petitioner, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Barshi will pass appropriate order in accordance with section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (iii) The parties and the trial Court to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. (A.S.Oka,J)