1 (crim appln 271 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1930 OF 2010 Rameshchandra Dalal ...Petitioner Vs. Veena K. Jetli and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Ms. Pooja Bhojne for Petitioner Mr.Devang Sanghvi for Respondent No.1 Mr.A.S. Shitole -APP for State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 31ST AUGUST, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, Respondent No.1 and the learned APP for the State. 2. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that after his advocate had cross examined the Complainant on the 10th date, the Petitioner’s Counsel remained absent and, therefore, the cross-examination was closed. The Petitioner, therefore preferred a revision application before the Sessions Court and that revision application was dismissed with costs. However, 2 (crim appln 271 of 2010) liberty was granted to the Petitioner to make an application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to cross examine the Complainant, within one week from the date of the order. It is submitted that the Court of the Learned Magistrate was vacant and, therefore, no such application could be filed by the Petitioner. It is submitted that one last opportunity may be given to the Petitioner to cross examine to the Complainant. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submitted that the Petitioner-Accused has been protracting the trial on one pretext or the other. He submitted that the complaint was filed in 2006 and the case has been fixed for final hearing today in the Trial Court. He also submitted that though the Court was vacant, it was always open for the Petitioner to file that application as directed by the Sessions Court within one week. The application in fact was filed on 28th June,2010. 3 (crim appln 271 of 2010) 5. In my view, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order. The Sessions Court had given one last chance to the Petitioner to file an application within one week. Time has already been given to the Petitioner to cross-examine the Complainant on as many as 9 dates. Thus, in my view, it is evident that the Petitioner is merely trying to protract the trial and has been making these applications. 6. Hence, in my view, no interference in the impugned order is called for. The writ petition is, accordingly dismissed. Trial is expedited. (V.M. KANADE J.)