1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.688 OF 2010 (Punjaram Sahebrao Jadhav .vs. Sanjay Puroshottam Tambekar) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders _ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Mr.A.M.Gedam, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.Deshpande, Adv. for the respondent. CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 2 nd August, 2011. Heard. Perused the order dt. 28.7.2010 which was passed by the learned trial Magistrate at the time when the learned Advocate for the accused prayed for re-calling of the complainant for the purpose of cross-examination on the ground that, on the previous date, the learned Advocate was not present due to important domestic work. The ground was not acceptable to the learned trial Magistrate as it was thought that the accused must grab the opportunity as and when it is available and that an attempt shall not be made either to prolong the matter or effect delay. Thus, recording the finding that there was no good or cogent reason, the application for re-calling the complainant was rejected. Criminal Revision No.37 of 2 2010 filed against the order passed by the trial Magistrate appears to have been dismissed mainly on the ground that the revision was affected by bar u/s. 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even otherwise, the learned Revisional Court thought that the application was rejected for just and proper reason. Be that as it may, considering the principle that the litigant shall not suffer on account of mistake of his Advocate, in this case, the trial was halted on account of the fact that the Advocate remained absent for attending important domestic work. In such a case, the Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner prays for re-calling the complainant and submits that the Advocate concerned himself shall personally pay the costs in the sum of Rs.500/- to the complainant as a condition precedent for to entertain the prayer to re-call the complainant for cross-examination. The impugned orders are set aside with a condition imposed against the applicants Advocate Mr.R.S.Kaakan that he shall personally pay the amount of costs in the sum of Rs.500/- to the complainant under his written acknowledgment as a condition precedent for granting permission to cross- examine the complainant. The trial Magistrate shall grant an opportunity for to re-call the complainant accordingly for cross-examination and shall complete the trial expeditiously. 3 With the above observations and directions, the Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of. JUDGE jais