1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2305 OF 2009 ( The State of Maharashtra vs. Vasant s/o dnyanoba Darade and another) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. S.G.Nandedkar, APP for applicant. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:10/9/2009 ... P.C.: 1. Heard learned A.P.P. Without serving notice to the respondent, the matter can be disposed of. 2. The slackness is shown on the part of the prosecution before the learned Judge. The learned Judge has accommodated the prosecution by application Exh.154, dt.15.11.2008, Exh.160 dt. 22.1.2009, however, inspite of such accommodation and granting the requisite warrants, the prosecution did not bother to comply its obligation and it is finally the 2 learned Judge by order below Exh. 162, directed payment of Rs.3,000/- (Rs.1,000/- to each of the accused) in the Courts accounts as exemplary costs on the next date of hearing as condition precedent to examination of prosecution witnesses other than investigation officer Deshmukh, cannot be said to be excessive or erroneous. The responsibility should be shared by the concerned Prosecutor who was negligent in discharge of his duties. Application disposed of. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/2305-09crapl