* 1 * W.P. 1497.2010 1.3.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1497 OF 2010 Ajit Ramchandra Kulkarni ...... Petitioner. V/S. The State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent * * * * * * Mr. Vijay Killedar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. M.R. Tidke, APP for the State­respondent. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 1st March, 2011. P.C. : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner is accused in Regular Criminal Case No. 115 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code. He is alleged to have produced false and fabricated certificates, mark­list and experience certificate in order * 2 * W.P. 1497.2010 1.3.2011 to secure employment in J.J. Magdum College of Engineering, Jaysingpur, Taluka­Shirol, Dist­Kolhapur. By this petition, he challenges the order dated 8th February, 2010 passed by the trial Court on his application at Exhibit­51 seeking an opportunity of further cross­examination. 3. The record shows that the examination­in­chief of the prosecution was completed on 6th October, 2009. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for cross­examination to 20th November, 2009. On the adjourned date, the advocate for the petitioner was absent. Therefore, the petitioner asked some questions in cross­examination to the prosecution witness. With this cross­examination, the evidence of the prosecution witness was treated to be completed. However, on the next date i.e. 30th December, 2009 he filed an application submitting that the prosecution witness be recalled for further cross­examination, as cross­examination by the petitioner, who is a layman, was not proper and in the interest of justice, an opportunity was required to be given for cross­examination to the advocate. This application came to be rejected by the impugned * 3 * W.P. 1497.2010 1.3.2011 order. 4. Perusal of the examination­in­chief and cross­examination by the petitioner, shows that there is hardly any cross­examination of the prosecution witness. The interests of justice require that the petitioner gets a proper opportunity to cross­examine the prosecution witness. Hence, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). The impugned order dated 8th February, 2010 is quashed and set aside. The application at Exhibit­51 is allowed. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]