1 15.wp.3127-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3127 OF 2010 Mohan Krishnan Kurup. ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .......... Mr.Sushan Kunjuraman, Advocate a/w. Mr.Mahesh Kadam, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.D.P. Adsule, A.P.P. for the State. .......... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 25th JANUARY, 2011. P.C. 1. Perused the reply affidavit filed by the Police Inspector, dealing with the respective cases. One thing is clear from the order passed by the lower Court dated 17th July, 2010 as well as the reply affidavit that the trial did not proceed because of non-arrest and non-production of accused No.5 Dhirubhai @ Dhirajbhai Velajibhai Kacheria. The trial PPD 2 15.wp.3127-10 Court has eventually separated the trial against the said original accused No.5. The reply affidavit states that the trial against other accused will proceed and for which reason, the matter was to be notified on 25th January, 2011 for framing of charge. Now it transpires that today the trial Court has adjourned the matter to April, 2011 for framing of charge as against the remaining accused. If the trial Court has already decided to proceed against the remaining accused separately, we are at loss to know, as to why the adjourned date of framing of charge is notified as April, 2011. We are of the considered opinion that having regard to the fact that the offence pertains to year 2001 and the trial has remained pending for quite sometime for one reason or the other, the trial Court will be advised to prepone the date of hearing to frame the charge sometime in second week of February, 2011 after giving notice/intimation in that behalf to all concerned; and after framing of charge proceed with the trial expeditiously if no other matter older than C.C. No.733/P/2001 is pending before that Court. In that case, the case on hand being the oldest matter, we expect the trial Court to proceed with the trial on day to day basis once the charges are framed by that Court against the concerned accused. If the trial Court is of the opinion that the prosecution is unnecessarily delaying the trial for frivolous reasons, may have to record that position in the Rozanama 3 15.wp.3127-10 so that if grievance is made in that regard, that can be enquired into and answered by the Court as and when occasion arise. 2. With these observations, Petition is disposed of. 3. Learned A.P.P. assures on behalf of the instructing Police Officer who is present in Court that this order will be brought to the notice of trial Court not later than 1st February, 2011 through Public Prosecutor in the trial Court for issuance of appropriate directions as may be required. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)