Girdhar S/O Mahadev Kamble vs State Of Mah. Thr. Anti Corruption ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 251 Bom

                                            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-

                                           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,

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