1 Cri.W.P.No.3303/2009 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3303 OF 2009 Dadasaheb D. Kadam ....Petitioner. v. H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. N.J.Patil, adv. For the Petitioner. Mr.Chetan R. Agrawal, adv. For the Respondent No.1. Smt. V.R.Bhosale, APP for the R.No.2. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : AUGUST 17, 2010 P.C. 1 Rule made returnable. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Complaint was filed by the respondents on 31.12.2008 and the summons was served on 7.5.2009. On 9.7.2009 affidavit in examination- in-chief was filed and on the next date, advocate for the accused sought one adjournment, which was granted subject to cost. Again on the next date, i.e., on 11.9.2009, adjournment was granted subject to cost and thereafter on the fixed date, advocate for the accused did not appear to cross-examine the witness and the Magistrate passed an order to proceed without cross-examination. Application was made on behalf of the accused on 14.10.2009 to recall the witness and permission to cross- 2 Cri.W.P.No.3303/2009 examine was refused. 2 Matter is not very old. Even though the matter was adjourned twice or thrice, the order refusing the permission to cross- examine the witness appears to be hasty and not in the interest of justice. After some discussion with consent of the learned counsel for the respondents/complainants, the impugned order is set aside. The learned Magistrate, J.M.F.C., Kolhapur is hereby directed to allow the accused to cross-examine the complainant in Summary Criminal Case No. 161/2009. Rule made absolute accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)