ORDER
J.G. Chitre, J.
1. All these writ petitions are being disposed of with common judgment and order because they revolve around the same and similar point. However, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1180 of 1990 is having its different identity in a particular sphere because it is revolving around four criminal cases bearing Nos. 310, 311, 312 and 313 of 1988. The evidence has been entirely recorded, arguments have been heard. The Judgments have not been delivered.
2. All those petitions are revolving around the complaints lodged by complainant- Mahankalkar, Drugs Inspector, alleging that the saline bottles were substandard because there were particulates present.
3. Shri Nitin Pradhan submitted that after the arguments have been heard for about six months, the judgment was not pronounced and on merit the petitioners are deserving to be acquitted. He urged that in the interest of justice this Court be pleased to decide the writ petitions on merit because that would avoid further delay in disposal of those cases. For substantiating this argument, Shri Nitin Pradhan touched the evidence and merits of the matters. However, Mrs. Kantharia submitted that it would be proper for this Court to decide these writ petitions and resultantly those criminal cases. She submitted that those cases be remanded for pronouncing the judgment as early as possible, for safeguarding the interest of both the parties.
4. It is a general rule of criminal jurisprudence that all points touching the merit and fate of a criminal case, criminal application or petition should be decided by floor most Court because that gives lawfully equal opportunity to the litigants tangled in legal battles to vindicate their grievances before appropriate higher Courts in the ladder of hierarchy. If this Court while deciding these writ petitions finally adjudicates over the merits of those criminal cases, the aggrieved party would not be having an appropriate lower forum to vent out the grievances. It is shocking that after the evidence has been recorded and arguments have been heard the judgments are not pronounced for 10 months as the record shows. It is testing the patience of the litigants and likely to create bad impression in their minds. This Court expresses a deep concern about it, however, refrains from deciding the petitions deciding those cases on merits for reserving appropriate forums for litigants involved in the ladder of hierarchy for venting out their grievance. This Court finds it necessary in the interest of justice to give a direction to the concerned trial Court to decide those cases as early as possible and at the latest within a month from the date of receiving the copy of this judgment. But before that, the concerned par- ties be given opportunity of submitting the arguments orally through their advocates with reference to the written arguments submitted already. The advocates should be also permitted to add the points in addition to those arguments if the interest of justice so requires and if they find it necessary to raise those points.
5. The Advocates, this Court hopes, would spare time to argue out the case on the days prescribed. The time limit should not be taken to curtail their arguments. In appropriate cases if the eventuality arises the trial Court would be at liberty to move an application with a prayer for extension of time. But that is not a concession for laxity and prolonging further the process of pronouncing the judgment.
6. Thus, these petitions are disposed of by the order of remand for delivery of the judgment so far as those four cases mentioned above are concerned.
7. In other cases, the trial Court should record the evidence as expeditiously as possible. The prosecution should summon the witnesses for examining them. They be examined on the prescribed dates. The Heads of the Departments should take maximum care to make them to present themselves for being examined in the respective Courts. If those prosecution witnesses do not appear on the prescribed dates before the Court, their presence should be secured by legal coercive methods may be by issuing non-bailable warrants. Recording of the evidence should be completed positively within three months from the date of receiving the copy of this Judgment. If the need arises, the trial Courts are at liberty to move an application for extension of time.
8. Shri Nitin Pradhan submitted that the petitioners-accused are not challenging their identity. Hence, the trial Court should keep in mind the provisions of Section 317 of the Cr. P.C., 1973 and to keep it in mind that in all cases, the presence of accused is not necessary. Those accused can be represented by their respective advocates and names of those advocates should be informed to the Court before hand. If an accused remains absent, then the concerned Court would be entitled to Summon the said accused to remain present in the Court and in that case, the said accused would be losing this concession of exemption. Record be dispatched to the senior most Chief Additional Metropolitan Magistrate from Esplanade Court i.e. Court No. 37. All the concerned advocates to remain present before that Court on 13-9-2002. It is clarified that pronouncement of the judgment should be within six months from 13-9-2002.
9. All these petitions stand disposed of. Rule in all the petitions stands discharged.
10. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Private Secretary of this Court.