1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 1168 OF 2009 Baba Gabriel Huns Maben ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. S.N. Bhosale (appointed) for the Petitioner Mr. D.P. Adsule, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 2009 P.C.:- It appears from the report of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that there are two cases pending against the petitioner before the Court, one case being Sessions Case No. 218 of 1999. It appears that in this case after examination of 26 witnesses, the Special Public Prosecutor had filed an application praying for calling confession of accused before the police officer from TADA Court. This application was rejected and the Special 2 Public Prosecutor approached the High Court in a revision and Writ Petition, which were rejected by the High Court. 2. Thereafter, it appears that the State has gone to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has summoned the record, and the record has been sent to the Supreme Court in February, 2007. Now, because of summoning of record by the Supreme Court in a 1999 case, the trial against the accused is not proceeding. Since the matter is pending in the Supreme Court, and the record has been summoned by the Supreme Court, this Court wold be helpless to help the accused in this case. 3. Another case is that from 2nd September, 1999 until after almost 10 years, charge has now been framed, and trial has started, but the trial also appears to be at a snail’s pace, and even at times, the accused is not produced, and at times, the witnesses are not present. 4. We, therefore, direct the learned Additional Sessions Judge to complete the trial of this case on a day-to-day basis. 3 Evidence shall be produced by the Public Prosecutor on his own, and in case he needs any assistance of the Court, he shall file an application in advance, so that the case is not adjourned for non-appearance of the witnesses on any occasion. 5. Similarly, it shall be the duty of the prosecution to produce the accused before the Court on each day of hearing. If the prosecution fails for any reason to produce the accused before the Court on the day of hearing, the prosecution shall pay costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) for each of such delays to the accused persons. 6. With these observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. 7. This order be communicated to the learned Additional Sessions Judge immediately. BILAL NAZKI, J. A.R. JOSHI, J.