1 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4725 OF 2010 Salmabi Nazir Shaikh ... Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. M.A. Adenwala, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Shinde, advocate for respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 and 8. Mr. Sanskar Marathe, i/by Mr. M.S. Karnik, Advocates for respondent nos. 5 to 7. Mrs. R.V. Newton, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 P.C. Heard. 2. The learned counsel seeks transfer of the case pending before the learned J.M.F.C. at Niphad on the ground that the applicant does not understand Marathi and cross examination is recorded in Marathi. He also submits that without petitioner giving the answers, the learned Judge has recorded in the cross examination as positive assertions on certain 2 questions. The leaned counsel submits that son of respondent no. 8 is advocate and member of the bar council wields influence on the bar and also Bench. 3. The transfer on such flimsy grounds should be avoided. The learned counsel should have taken proper instructions before making these blistering submissions. This also invites of interfering in system, making untrue assertions amounting to contempt of the court proceedings. He should have not involved the Learned Judge in parties personal score. Law is well settled, court proceedings speaks for itself. The applicant is aged 70 years old. She is permanent resident of Jalgaon. Naturally cannot be accepted not to understand Marathi. Added to it, is her examination in chief is in Marathi where she did not record any remorse of not following the language or questions put to her by the A.P.P. The exercise is certainly afterthought to avoid court concern. Application lacks merits and dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)