bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1133 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 1133 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 1133 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ... Petitioner v/s Shri Gondappagauda Parutgauda Koti & 4 ors. ... Respondents Smt.A.A.Mane, A.P.P. for the petitioner State. Mr.Umesh R. Mankapure for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 27TH JUNE, 2008 27TH JUNE, 2008 27TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The State has challenged the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli, on 18.7.2005 in R.C.C.No.181 of 1996 discharging the accused and the order passed by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, confirming the discharge in the revision application filed by the State. 2. According to the learned A.P.P., the orders passed by the Courts below suffer from infirmity which require to be corrected by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. It is submitted that the Trial Court has discharged the accused on the ground that the prosecution has not led any evidence before charge for atleast 3 to 4 years. It 2 is submitted by the learned A.P.P. that the Court was not able to take up the matter because of some heavy work pending in the Court. She submits that the roznama shows that on many occasions the accused remained absent and the matter was adjourned. Today, however, she submits that it is only on one occasion that an adjournment was asked by the prosecution since the Food Inspector had retired. 3. In my opinion, this submission of the learned A.P.P. cannot be accepted. It is inconceivable that for nine years the prosecution was unable to lead evidence before the Judge. Assuming the Court was busy with other matters on some days or that the accused was absent on some other days, it was for the prosecution witness to remain present in Court for his evidence to be recorded. If indeed he had been present, the roznama would reflect this. In fact, the complainant has been absent from Court on a number of occasions as seen from the roznama. 4. In such a situation, there is no need to interfere with the orders passed by both the Courts below. 5. Writ petition rejected.