1 revn147.12.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.147 OF 2012
APPLICANT : Girdhar s/o Mahadev Kamble,
Aged 61 years, Occupation - Retired,
R/o Hinganghat, District Wardha.
: VERSUS :
NON-APPLICANT : ig State of Maharashtra,
through Anti Corruption Bureau,
Chandrapur.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
Mr. A.D. Hazare, Advocate for the applicant,
Mr. N.R. Rode, Addl. P.P. for the non-applicant/State.
--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM: M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.
DATED : 20th OCTOBER, 2012.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The learned Counsel for the applicant seeks permission to carry out amendment in the application to the effect that the application is filed under Sections 397 read with 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The prayer is granted. The amendment be carried out forthwith in the title and prayer clause.
2. Heard learned Counsel Mr. A.D. Hazare for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecution Mr. N.R. Rode for the non-
::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:28:47 ::: 2 revn147.12.odt
applicant/State.
3. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
4. I have gone through the impugned order. The impugned order basically suffers from prejudice against the applicant mainly because the applicant had retired without suffering any punishment from the department. It shows that the learned Judge was probably prejudiced against the applicant.
5. Moreover, the learned Judge has gone beyond normal practice of conducting the Court and had asked his own Sheristedar to verify whether the learned Advocate for the applicant was busy in other Court. It appears from the order that the learned Advocate for the applicant was busy in conducting cross-examination of Medical Officer and later on he was sitting in the same Court. The learned trial Court thought that he was sitting idle and avoiding trial. It is possible that the learned Advocate for the applicant might be busy when his opponent's witness was being examined.
6. In the circumstances, the order directing the applicant to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- for seeking adjournment cannot be sustained. Hence, ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:28:47 ::: 3 revn147.12.odt I pass the following order.
The impugned order dated 14th August, 2012 below Exh.29 is set aside. Any adverse remark made against the Advocate for the applicant in the impugned order is also quashed.
JUDGE pma ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:28:47 :::