1 Cri. W.P.. No.1038/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1038 OF 2011 Uddhav s/o Vitthalrao Padgelwar, Age 62 years, Occ. Retired, R/o New Adarsh Colony, Latur, Taluka and District Latur ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra (Notice to be served on the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri S.P. Urgunde, Advocate for the petitioner Shri G.R. Ingole, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 1st December, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Perused. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for hearing by mutual consent of parties. 2. According to the petitioner, the right of cross- examination of the panch witness in the trial on the charges of having committed offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in 2 Cri. W.P.. No.1038/2011 Special Case No.4/2007, pending before the Special Judge, Latur, has been wrongfully denied by closing his cross-examination on 5.11.2011. The petitioner further reveals that the evidence was commenced on 17.11.2009 and the examination-in-chief of P.W.3 was completed on 19.7.2011; and the Advocate of the accused, on 5.11.2011, was at Pune and the application moved for adjournment on that day was allowed and the case was adjourned to 9.8.2011 for the cross-examination of P.W.3; and on 9.8.2011, the accused was suffering from lumber spondylosis and was advised to take bed rest, and for want of instructions, again the adjournment was sought on that day, and the cross-examination of P.W.3 was posted on 13.9.2011. On 13.9.2011, the case was further adjourned to 7.10.2011 on account of the strike of the staff and on 7.10.2011, the case was further adjourned on the application moved by P.W.3, to 25.10.2011 and thereafter came to be adjourned to 5.11.2011. On 5.11.2011, the petitioner states that an application for adjournment was moved on the ground that the Advocate for the accused was out of station. This application was resisted by the State and the impugned order came to be passed. 3. Learned trial Court rejected the application with the observations that the matter has been adjourned at the instance of the accused on various dates and no cogent grounds were 3 Cri. W.P.. No.1038/2011 revealed for the purposes of adjourning the matter and the application for adjournment was moved for protracting the case. 4. From the application, no grounds for adjournments have been revealed except a statement that the Advocate for the accused is out of station for his personal work. It would, therefore, be not proper to find fault with the order of the learned Special Judge but with the casual attitude towards the trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act, shown by the accused particularly his Advocate. However, P.W.3 is a material witness, whose evidence would be deciding the fate of the accused in the trial. Considering this fact, the impugned order needs to be set aside and opportunity given to the petitioner for cross-examining the said witness. This exercise would certainly involve expense to the State and the witness and, therefore, they need to be compensated. Hence the order : 5. The order dated 5.11.2011 closing the cross- examination of panch witness P.W.3 Raju Chanbasappa Mahajan is set aside subject to the petitioner/ accused depositing costs of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) in the trial Court on or before 10th December 2011. Learned trial Court shall issue witness summons to P.W.3 3 Raju Chanbasappa Mahajan on deposit of 4 Cri. W.P.. No.1038/2011 costs stipulated herein. The witness P.W.3 to be paid amount of Rs.3000/- out of the costs deposited, and balance of Rs.2000/- be paid to the State. The applicant/ accused shall note the observations made in this order and shall keep duly instructed Advocate present before the trial Court on the given date/s for effectively conducting the said case. Rule is made absolute in above terms. Criminal Writ Petition stands disposed off accordingly. Authenticated copy of this order be issued to the parties. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) fmp/cwp1038.11