APPLN-404-11.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.404 OF 2011 Rajesh J. Parekh ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. U.P. Warunjikar, i/b. PDS & Associates, for the Applicant. Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP, for Respondent No.1. Mr. D.N. Salvi for Respondent No.2. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 29 TH JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Warunjikar, the learned Advocate for the Applicant, and Mr. Salvi, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, for Respondent No.2-C.B.I. 2. The Applicant is an accused in seven cases, which are pending in three different Courts. One case, bearing Special Case No.35 of 2005, is pending before the Special Judge for Greater Bombay. Four cases are pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai and two cases are pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court at Esplanade, Mumbai. By the present Application, the Applicant is seeking permission of this Court to travel abroad for short period. 3. A doubt about the maintainability and/or propriety of approaching this Court for such permission, instead of approaching the trial Court, was expressed, when Mr. Warunjikar, the learned Advocate for the Applicant, submitted that since the Applicant would have to approach three different APPLN-404-11.sxw 2 Dixit Courts, it would cause difficulties and hardships to him, and that, therefore, he has directly approached this Court. According to him, this Court, being superior, is empowered to grant such permission. Mr. Warunjikar also points out that, in the past, such permissions were given by this Court. 4. In my opinion, when the cases of the Applicant are pending before the trial Courts, it would be proper for the Applicant to seek permission from the trial Courts. In my opinion, the Applicant cannot directly approach this Court and seek permission to go abroad from this Court, when his cases are pending before the trial Court and when he has not chosen even to apply before the trial Courts. Mr. Warunjikar submits that it would be legally permissible for this Court to entertain such an application, but without going into the question of legality or otherwise of such a course, it needs to be observed that propriety requires that the Applicant should approach the trial Courts for such permission. 5. Mr. Warunjikar pointed out that this application has been pending for quite some time before this Court, and that the Applicant now requires to go abroad urgently. He submits that since the view of this Court that the applications should be made before the trial Courts is expressed, he would make an application before the trial Court as expeditiously as possible and perhaps even today. Mr. Salvi, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.2-C.B.I., assures that the prosecution would be ready to go on with the matter, as soon as the application is made. The trial Courts are expected to dispose of such applications, as and when made by the Applicant, expeditiously and preferably on the same day. APPLN-404-11.sxw 3 Dixit 6. In the result, I hold that it would not be proper to entertain such application, and that the Applicant should approach the trial Courts for the necessary permission. Needless to say, that, as aforesaid, the trial Courts are required and expected to dispose of such applications, if made, expeditiously and preferably on the same day. 7. The Criminal Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]