hvn 31//appp/524.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 524 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 813 OF 2011 Hemant Rajendra Bhatt ... Applicant Versus Central Bureau of Investigation and anr. ... Respondents Mr.Subhash Jha i/by M/s. Law Global, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Mandar Goswami i/by Mr. D.N. Salvi for respondent no. 1. Mr. D.R. More, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. Jha for the applicant extensively. Perused the order of the learned Judge rejecting recalling of the witnesses recorded below Exh. 40. Perused the application below Exh. 145. The record illustrate that Mr. Achar, Recovery Department of the Corporation Bank referred as fresh witness is not named by the prosecution. The accused/applicant does not indicate him to be 1 hvn 31//appp/524.11 defence witness and desires to cross examine him without their being examination in chief. This illusory exercise warrants deprecation. That apart the learned Judge has observed that in all 57 witnesses have been examined, statements of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, the matter is at the stage of argument and it is a time bound matter to be disposed of upto 25th September, 2011. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent (original complainant) has so far completed their submissions. Now the turn is for applicant accused Hemant Bhatt. In the above backdrop, powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. is sought tobe exercised. Need not be so done. I do not see any error or intellectual crisis in the order recorded by the learned Judge. However, if the learned Judge has, with him extended time from the appropriate Bench of this court to dispose of the said case, he may entertain the adjournment application, if moved by the accused (Applicant) for submission of their defence. Application rejected. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) 2