1 cri.appln.4892 of 2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4892 OF 2010 Harinarayan G. Bajaj ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Ms. Sonal i/by Mr. V.M. Sharma for the applicant. Mr. G.B. Kedia along with Mr. M.G. Agre for respondent nos. 2 to 5. Mrs. M.R. Tidke, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : FEBRUARY 24, 2011 P.C. 1. This Criminal application is filed to direct the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum to dispose of the proceedings in Case No. 19/S/2003 within a specific period by fixing appropriate time schedule in conducting the trial by holding it on day today basis. The application which is in fact 7th application for extension of time is hotly contested by the respondent nos. 2 to 5 accused. 2 cri.appln.4892 of 2010 The hearing of the complaint was expedited by this court by its order dated 15th September, 2005 passed in Criminal Application No.5898 of 2005 at the instance of the applicant and the Magistrate was directed to dispose off the same preferably by 30th June, 2006. Thereafter this Court by the orders passed from time to time extended the outer limit given for disposal of the trial to 30th December, 2006, 31st May, 2007, 31st December, 2007, 18th July 2008. Then by an order dated 11th June, 2009 this court extended the period to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date on which the order vacating stay was received by the learned Magistrate from the Apex Court in view of pendency of the proceedings in the Apex Court. The stay was vacated by the Apex Court vide its order dated 6th January, 2010 and hence, the trial ought to have been completed by the trial court by 6th July, 2010. However, as the trial was not completed, by order dated 14th July, 2010, a last extension was granted directing the trial court to dispose of the trial without seeking further extension within three months which period expired on 14th October, 2010. 2. The present application is thus the 7th application for extension of time to dispose off the trial. 3 cri.appln.4892 of 2010 During the extensions there have been some other developments in the matter in as much as some time in December, 2007, accused no. 5 came to be added to the proceedings . By the order dated 6th January, 2010 the Apex Court directed that evidence before charge against accused no. 5 be recorded afresh. Todays position is that two witnesses of the prosecution have been examined leaving only one witness to be examined. As regards accused nos. 1 to 4 the evidence before charge has been completed and the trial court has framed charges against them. These accused persons have challenged the order and the challenge has reached this court by way of revision application nos. 450, 451 and 452 of 2007 and at the same is pending for final hearing at the stage of admission. 3. It has been complained on behalf of the applicant that unusually long time is being taken by the respondents while cross examining the witnesses. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that when the examination-in-chief of the witnesses is barely of few pages, the cross examination runs into several pages. The examination-in-chief of PW 1 was of 16 pages, and the cross 4 cri.appln.4892 of 2010 examination runs into about 55 pages. The cross examination of PW 1 had commenced on 1st July, 2010 and it was completed on 27th January, 2011. Cross examination of PW 2 was commenced on 31st January, 2011 and has been completed on 18th February, 2011. 4. Mr.Kedia, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submits it is the applicant himself along with his witnesses and not respondent no. 5 who is responsible for the length of time. According to him both the witnesses have been difficult witnesses who avoided to give straight answers. Further there are as many as 142 documents relied upon by the prosecution which according to him automatically makes the cross examination lengthy. He opposes direction for extension of the outer limit for disposal of the trial submitting that it would put constrictions on opportunity of hearing to the respondents. His second argument is that there can be no outer limit fixed for disposal of the criminal trials. In this connection he relies upon two decisions of the Apex Court, in Abdul Rehman Antulay and others Vs. R.S. Nayak and another reported in (1992) 1 S.C.C. 225 and Ajaykumar Ghose Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 2282. The perusal of both the judgments show, that it has not been held 5 cri.appln.4892 of 2010 anywhere by the Apex Court that there is absolute bar in fixing time limit for criminal trials. What has been disapproved by the Apex Court is termination of the criminal proceedings for not disposing of the trials within the time limit granted. In fact in the first decision cited it has been observed in terms by the Apex Court that it is open to the Court to make appropriate orders including the order to complete the trial within the fixed time where the trial is not completed so that the right to speedy trial of the accused has been upheld. In the circumstances, the arguments that no outer limit for the trial of the criminal offence can be set cannot be accepted. 5. The record and proceedings show that the parties have also been actively challenging the orders adverse to them in the higher courts which has added to the delay in disposal. Taking overall view of the matter and in particular revision applications pending in this court filed by the accused nos. 1 to 4 to challenge the order of charge framed against them, it would be appropriate at this stage to extend the time only for the purpose of completing the proceedings until the stage of framing of charge i.e. completion of evidence before charge, arguments to be advanced for framing of charge and for the 6 cri.appln.4892 of 2010 trial court to pass orders regarding framing of charge. Once that is done and if the matter has to proceed further as regards accused no. 5, it will be open to the parties to approach this court for extending time limit for disposal of the trial. Both the advocates state that the date before the trial court is tomorrow. In that circumstances, the present application is disposed off by directing that the trial court shall complete proceedings upto framing of charge within a period of two months from today. Application disposed of. [Judge]