IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4351 OF 2006 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4351 OF 2006 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4351 OF 2006 IN IN IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ---- OF 2006 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ---- OF 2006 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ---- OF 2006 Abhijit Vasant Bhor ...Applicant (Orig.Complainant) vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents (Respondent No.2 - orig.accused) Mr.C.K. Pendse for the Applicant. Mr.S.S. Pednekar, APP for the State. Ms.V.A. Navale for Respondent No.2. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : DECEMBER 3, 2008 DATED : DECEMBER 3, 2008 DATED : DECEMBER 3, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard Counsel for the applicant and Counsel for the respondent. 2. The applicant is challenging order passed by the trial court dismissing the complaint for want of prosecution since both the parties and their Advocates were absent. 3. Counsel for the applicant has invited my attention to the Roznama of the court. The Roznama - 2 - indicates that from 25.1.2000 to 24.5.2002, the applicant and his Advocate had remained absent. Counsel for the applicant submitted that there was sufficient cause for not remaining present. He submitted that the complaint was filed in 1995 and the respondent accused could not be served and even after service, the accused did not remain present on number of occasions and therefore, bailable warrant was issued. He submitted that the applicant was pursuing the case diligently from 1995 to 2000 and on these dates, the respondent-accused had remained absent. He submitted thereafter on account of financial difficulties, he was not in a position to attend the court. He submitted that he was not in a position to pay the fees of the lawyer who was pursuing his own case on pro bono basis. In paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9, he has given reasons why the applicant could not remain present. In para 9, he has stated that he used to make inquiries with the Advocate regarding the progress of the case, however, his Advocate informed him that on account of huge pendency of several cases, his case was not being heard finally. He has stated that from 2000 to September 2005, the same standard reply - 3 - given by the Advocate. 4. In my view, the explanation given by the applicant for not remaining present from 25.1.2000 to 24.5.2002 is not sufficient and the trial court was justified in dismissing the complaint for want of prosecution. Hence, no case is made out for grant of leave. 5. Leave is refused. Appeal does not survive. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)