sat 1 wp 1006-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1006 OF 2011 Pradeep Narottamdas Harsora & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.N.K. Thakur i/b. Mr.Prakash Naik for the Petitioners. Ms.A.T. Jhaveri, APP for the State. Mr.V.M. Bhardwaj for Respondent No.2. CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. NOVEMBER 24, 2011 P.C. :- 1 Heard learned Advocate Mr.Thakur for the petitioners and Mr.Bhardwaj for respondent no.2. None for respondent no.1. 2 I have perused the impugned order. The trial court has given cogent reasons while rejecting the application of the petitioners for deferring cross- examination of PW 1. sat 2 wp 1006-2011 3 It is submitted before me that the petitioners, who are the original accused, want to prove certain documents during the course of cross-examination of bank officers, who are proposed to be examined by the prosecution. It is submitted that if the PW 1 is cross- examined completely, the petitioners will have to disclose their whole defence in the cross-examination of PW 1. It is further submitted that the other witnesses will become alert and the petitioners will not be able to cross- examine other witnesses effectively. 4 I think that the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are not sustainable. If these arguments are accepted, similar prayers can be made in almost all prosecutions and the witnesses can be troubled unnecessarily. I do not think that the petitioners have been able to make out any case for deferring the cross-examination of PW no.1. The petition is devoid of merits. The order of the learned trial court does not suffer from any infirmity. He has applied his mind and has given cogent reasons in the order. I do not sat 3 wp 1006-2011 want to interfere the said order. 5 The petition stands dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J)