22-CRIR-15-2025.DOC Suchitra IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.15/2025 STATE OF GOA, through Anti Narcotic Cell, Panaji Goa, represented herein by Shri Rohan Nageshkar, age 37 years, currently posted at Fatorda Police Station, Fatorda Goa. 40311. … APPLICANT Versus SHRI PRINCE EXENWA age not known, age 44 years, r/o Guirim, Bardez Goa. … RESPONDENT Mr S. G. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor for the Applicant. Ms C. Collasso with Mr Sahil Lavande, Advocates for the Respondent. CORAM: VALMIKI MENEZES, J. DATED: 18th AUGUST 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. his is a Criminal Revision Application iled against the impugned order dated 06.01.2025 by which the Sessions Court has refused adjournment to the prosecution. he adjournment was sought on the ground that the witness PW8/IO whose cross- examination was underway, could not remain present on that date since he was assigned to Bandobast duty. Page 1 of 3 18th August 2025 2025:BHC-GOA:1526 22-CRIR-15-2025.DOC 3. he reasons for which adjournment was sought are otherwise not denied by the respondent/accused. he cause for seeking an adjournment on 06.01.2025 was otherwise a good and suicient cause for granting adjournment. he only reason which forms the basis for rejecting adjournment and closing the cross of the witness was his past conduct. 4. It is pointed out by the learned advocate for the respondent that on several occasions prior to this date, PW8/IO remained absent without any grounds, hence the impugned order has been correctly passed and does not call for interference. 5. It is trite law that even where adjournments have been granted in the past for wrong reasons or for some suicient cause not being shown, that would not be a ground to refuse the adjournment on the date sought, if otherwise the ground made out was suicient and proper. 6. In the present case, the ground set out for seeking adjournment was that the oicer was on Bandobast duty, hence could not attend the Court. he reason, having been otherwise accepted as suicient ground, and the fact that he was on Bandobast duty not having been otherwise contested by the respondent, it constitutes a suicient ground to grant adjournment. 7. In my opinion therefore, the impugned order, which is based on the past conduct of the witness, requires to be quashed and set aside. Page 2 of 3 18th August 2025 22-CRIR-15-2025.DOC 8. he impugned order is therefore quashed and set aside for the above reasons. he matter is now listed before the Sessions Court on 25.08.2025 at 2.30 p.m. PW8/IO shall remain present on that date and be subjected to cross-examination by the respondent. 9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. 10. Criminal Revision Application is disposed of. VALMIKI MENEZES, J. 18th August 2025 Signed by: SUCHITRA NANDAN SINGBAL Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 19/08/2025 10:09:32