GANESH BABURAO KHARAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State and the learned counsel for the informant.

(2.) The record reveals that the trial was protracted due to an application filed by the complainant to transfer the Sessions Trial on so-called apprehension of getting no justice for him. His application for transfer of the Sessions Case was rejected. He had preferred Criminal Writ Petition before this Court against the said order, and that has also been dismissed his petition.

(3.) The roznama (daily order sheet) referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant reveals that the learned Public Prosecutor was absent. However, after the order passed by this Court dismissing the Writ Petition of the complainant, around six witnesses were examined. The accused has a right to have a speedy trial. At the same time, papers reveal that few witnesses remained to be examined.