( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.251 OF 1999 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.251 OF 1999 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.251 OF 1999 Shri Manikrao Mahadev Sasane .. Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.A.P.Mundargi a/w. Mr.Ganesh Gole for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 29th April, 2008. DATED : 29th April, 2008. DATED : 29th April, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Mr.A.P.Mundargi with Mr.Ganesh Gole for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for the State. 2. F.I.R. is lodged against the petitioner for having committed offence under Section 13(1)(E) r/w. Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 109 of I.P.C. 3. The petitioner happens to be the father of the principal accused Ramesh Mahadev Sasane. The petitioner filed an application under Section 227 of ( 2 ) the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Special Judge, Pandharpur, who was conducting the Special Case No.3 of 1999 being Application at Exhibit-14. The said Application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. was heard and decided by the learned Special Judge, Pandharpur by order dated 21.8.1999 and that the learned Special Judge, Pandharpur rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 21.8.1999, the petitioner filed this revision. 4. In the midst of hearing of the arguments, learned Advocate Mr.Mundargi appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner be permitted to withdraw this petition and further submitted that all questions which can be legitimately raised before the Trial Court be left open to enable the petitioner to advance submissions at the stage of framing of charges as per the provisions of Cr.P.C. 5. Learned Advocate Mr.Mundargi further submitted that the petitioner is presently of about 79 years and is fairly old and at times finds difficulties in moving out of his house. Learned Advocate Mr.Mundargi also submitted that appropriate direction be given to the learned Special Judge as not to insist the presence of the petitioner on each and every date and that the presence of the petitioner be called upon in ( 3 ) the Court on such dates where the presence of the petitioner is absolutely necessary, particularly because this is not a case where the identity of the petitioner is in dispute. 6. The submissions on the part of the learned Advocate Mr.Mundargi being the submissions as regards leaving all questions open as well as the attendance of the petitioner can be considered favourably with permission to the petitioner to withdraw this petition. This Court is now informed that the venue of the learned Special Judge is changed and that the case is now being tried by the learned Special Judge, who is presiding at a Court at Malshiras, District Solapur. In view of the above, appropriate directions shall be given with reference to the Special Judge at Malshiras, District Solapur. Hence, the following order :- a) The petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition. b) All questions are left open. No views are expressed on merits of this case by this Court. c) Since this application at Exhibit-14 ( 4 ) was filed as application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and since this revision is being withdrawn, it will be now necessary for the learned Special Judge, Malshiras to proceed in the matter in accordance with the provisions of law and that the learned Special Judge, Malshiras shall proceed in the matter in accordance with the provisions of law. d) The presence of the petitioner on each and every date before the learned Special Judge, Malshiras is dispensed with and if the learned Special Judge wants the physical presence of the petitioner for a particular purpose, the learned Special Judge, Malshiras shall direct the petitioner accordingly and then the petitioner shall remain present. e) The learned Special Judge shall take reasonable care in passing the aforesaid order keeping in view the age of the petitioner and the fact that the identity of the petitioner is not in dispute. Of course, if the petitioner wishes to remain present in Court on his own, he will be at liberty to do so. 7. Revision application stands disposed off as ( 5 ) withdrawn in the above terms. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)