1 ndm 2 APPR.116.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 116 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2010 Gulzar Singh Bhullar and anr. ... APPLICANTS Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr. ... RESPONDENTS -------- Ms. Pravina J. Kanani and Tejal Purohit for Applicants. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for State. Mr. J. Khajotia for Respondent No.2. -------- CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 16 th April, 2010. P.C. 1 The present application is for relaxation of time limit of four weeks as directed by this Court vide order dated 23 rd November, 2009. 2 This Court in Criminal Revision Application (Stamp) No. 525 of 2009 while allowing the revision filed by the Respondent herein had allowed the application for recalling the complainant as witness. 2 3 However, while allowing the said revision, this court taking into consideration the fact that the case was pending since a long period, it observed that if the, if the accused Nos. 2 and 3 desire to lead any evidence, they shall file an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief within four weeks from the date of the said order. It is further directed that they shall submit themselves to cross-examination by remaining present on each date of hearing thereafter. 4 The learned counsel for the Applicants submits that since the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court was challenged before the Apex Court and since the matter was pending before the Apex Court, which was dismissed only on 29 th March, 2010, the condition so imposed by this Court needs to be relaxed and further time needs to be given to the Applicants to lead evidence. 5 This Court vide order dated 23 rd November, 2009 had granted indulgence in favour of the Applicants and permitted them to lead their evidence, if so desired within a period of four weeks. The said period came to be expired on 23 rd December, 2009. The SLP in question was filed on 21 st February, 2010, the same is dismissed on 29 th March, 2010. 6 It is thus clear that the SLP itself has been filed much after the period as permitted by this Court. It is further pertinent to note that, if 3 the Applicants desired to make any such request, they could have made the request before the Apex Court. 7 When this Court had granted the indulgence in favour of the Applicants and granted liberty to them to lead the evidence, if so desired within a period of four weeks from the date of the order, the Applicants ought to have done so. 8 No case is made out for interference. Hence rejected. [ B.R. GAVAI, J ]