1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2072 OF 2009 Anil Jadhav & Ors. .. Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Chetan Akerkar for the applicants. Mr.Y.M.Nakhawa, A.P.P for the respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 25th June 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants. The applicants are the accused. The applicants are being prosecuted on the basis of F.I.R lodged by the 2nd respondent. The grievance of the applicants in this application is that from time to time the applicants have been attending the trial Court but the case has not proceeded. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants invited my attention to order dated 08th May 2007 passed by the learned Magistrate in which he has recorded that the prosecution is not keen on keeping the prosecution witnesses present and therefore the trial is being delayed. He pointed out that in the said order the learned Magistrate observed that only in the interests of justice one opportunity was being 2 granted to the prosecution to produce the witnesses. He pointed out that after the said order was passed twenty-four dates have been fixed in the case but the learned Judge has went on adjourning the case. He submitted that the right of speedy trial has been defeated in this fashion. Therefore, the present application has been filed for quashing the criminal case. 2. I have considered the submissions. I have perused the order dated 08th May 2007 which clearly records that the prosecution was not taking keen interest in prosecuting the case and as a result of the attitude adopted by the prosecution the trial has been delayed. On 08th May 2007 the case was adjourned by the learned Magistrate only for purpose of giving one opportunity to the prosecution. 3. Perusal of the roznama of the case shows that the case has been adjourned thereafter from time to time. It must be also stated that on same dates the case has been adjourned as the some of the accused were not present or an application was made for adjournment on the behalf of some of the accused. But the fact remains that the order dated 08th May 2007 passed by the learned Magistrate of granting only one 3 opportunity to the prosecution has remained only on paper and the said order has not been implemented in its true spirit. It is true that the learned Magistrate is required to deal with large number of cases everyday. However, considering the observations made by the learned Judge in order dated 08th May 2007, now he cannot show any indulgence to the prosecution and grant time to the prosecution unless there are exceptional grounds to do so. 4. As the case has been adjourned on some of the dates even on account of absence some of the accused, at this stage no case is not made out for quashing. However, the learned Judge of the trial Court has to consider the observations made by him in order dated 08th May 2007. The learned Magistrate will ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible as sufficient opportunity has been already granted to prosecution to adduce the evidence and further indulgence cannot be shown to the prosecution. With these observations, the application is disposed of. (A.S.OKA,J)