Javed Munshi Khan v. Ahmed Abdul Saleji And ANR.

(19)WPNo.50542019(J).odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5054 OF 2019 Mr.Javed Munshi Khan ...

Petitioner

Versus

Mr.Ahmed Abdul Saleji & Anr.

...

Respondents .....

Mr.Dilip H. Shukla, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Himanshu Shinde, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mr.A.R.Kapadnis, APP for the Respondent No.2/State. ....

CORAM : A.M.BADAR J.

DATED : 17 th OCTOBER 2019.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard.

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

Limited grievance of the petitioner, who happens to be the original accused is to grant him an opportunity to advance final argument fully in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Gaikwad RD 1/2

(19)WPNo.50542019(J).odt The subject criminal case was fixed for final argument on 25/09/2019 and the learned Counsel for the petitioner/ accused partly argued the matter on that day. He has also tendered case laws. However, in second session he was not available and, therefore, a request for adjournment was made by moving a written application and that is rejected by the impugned Order with a reason that sufficient opportunities are already granted to the accused and his learned Counsel left the Court without seeking leave of the Court.

In order to do complete justice between the parties, fair opportunity of hearing by granting short accommodation to the learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused was necessary. The impugned Order is not justified and, therefore, the Order :

ORDER

(i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (ii)The learned trial Magistrate to hear the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused on next date of hearing and then to proceed to decide the case according to law.

(iii)The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (A.M.BADAR, J.) Gaikwad RD 2/2