bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. CRI. CRI. APPLICATION NO. 421 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 421 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 421 OF 2008 Vinod S. Kakkad ... Applicant v/s Suresh Shivram Dave & anr. ... Respondents Smt.Asha M. Bhambwani for the applicant. Smt.Gouri Godse for the respondent No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 24TH MARCH, 2008. 24TH MARCH, 2008. 24TH MARCH, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The present criminal application has been filed against the order dated 29.11.2007 passed by the J.M.F.C. Panvel rejecting the application filed by the present applicant for issuance of witness summons to Devendrakumar Shah. The learned Judge has rejected the application since the matter has been prolonged by the applicant and adjournments had been sought by the applicant from time to time in order to keep this witness present in Court. 2. An affidavit in reply has been filed by the respondent No.1 indicating the dates on which the matter has been adjourned before the Trial Court for one reason 2 or the other, at the instance of the applicant. It appears that the applicant had initially sought to examine Pinki Badlani and witness summons had already been issued to this person. However, the matter was adjourned on several occasions from 5.9.2006 till 15.1.2007 either because Pinky Badlani was unwell and the applicant claimed to be indisposed. On 18.11.2006 an application was made for issuance of witness summons to Devendrakumar Shah which application was rejected by the impugned order. 3. In my view, although the applicant does not deserve any latitude, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to set aside the order passed by the J.M.F.C. Panvel, which has been impugned in this application, on the following conditions being complied by the applicant: (i) The applicant will keep his witnesses, Pinky Badlani and Devendrakumar Shah present in Court on 5.4.2008 on which date the matter has already been posted. The evidence of both these witnesses will be led on that day, subject to the time available. (ii) The applicant will produce Devendrakumar 3 Shah in Court for examining him as a witness either by personally serving him or by issuance of witness summons. (iii) Whether Devendrakumar Shah is personally served or by witness summons, he must be present in Court on 5.4.2008 for being examined as a witness. (iv) No further adjournments on any count will be granted to the applicant. (v) Once the applicant’s evidence is over, it is expected that the Trial Court will dispose of the Criminal Case No.232 of 2000 as expeditiously as possible and in any event by 31.5.2008. 4. The applicant who is present in Court, has been informed of this order. He undertakes to comply with the aforesaid directions of the Court. 5. Application disposed of accordingly. 4 (SMT.NISHITA (SMT.NISHITA (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) MHATRE, J.) MHATRE, J.)