Judgment ( 1 ) THIS is a petition by the government Servant who was working as asstt. Public Prosecutor and was entrusted with Sessions Trial No. 234 of 1996. He moved an application on 23-12-2002 for grant of adjournmenton the ground that he was unable to prepare for this case since the District government Pleader had handed over to him the charge-sheet on the date when the case was fixed. He further contended that he was holding additional charge for two Districts and he had received three Prosecutors for training and was hard pressed of work and, therefore, prayed for adjournment. ( 2 ) THIS application for adjournment was opposed by some of the accused as follows :- "application is opposed. The prosecution is delaying the matter unnecessary. Hence, application may kindly be rejected in the interest of justice. " ( 3 ) THE learned Additional Sessions judge, Akola, passed order observing that the prosecution witnesses were present and if the in charge Prosecutor wants adjournment, he will have to bear the costs of the witnesses for the date. ( 4 ) THE Petitioner herein then filed another application stating that at 11 a. m. itself, he had requested for adjournment and also requested that the case be taken after 2. 30 p. m. in the noon or after one hour. However, his request was declined and he was asked to bear the cost. He further stated that on that date, he was not carrying money with him and requested that he may be granted time for payment up to 2/1/2003. On this application, the learned Session judge passed order rejecting the request of adjournment, however, granted time for payment of costs and Bhatta of the witnesses on the next date i. e. on 24/12/2002. Adjournment was refused in recording that the Sessions Case was already fixed for day to day hearing from 23rd to 27th December, 2002 and one of the accused was already in custody. ( 5 ) ON 24/12/2002, the Petitioner herein filed an application stating that he wanted to challenge the order for directing the petitioner to pay Bhatta personally and sought adjournment for obtaining stay order from the high Court up to 31-1-2003, which application was also rejected. ( 5 ) ON 24/12/2002, the Petitioner herein filed an application stating that he wanted to challenge the order for directing the petitioner to pay Bhatta personally and sought adjournment for obtaining stay order from the high Court up to 31-1-2003, which application was also rejected. ( 6 ) THEREAFTER, the Joint District and sessions Judge and the Additional Sessions judge issued a notice to the Petitioner on 31- 12-2002 calling him to show cause as to why action towards the contempt of order of the court should not be taken, within three days. The Petitioner replied the show cause notice, however, being dissatisfied with the reply, the Joint District Judge and the Additional sessions Judge, Akola, filed through District government Pleader a complaint before the chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola under Section 188 of I. P. C. The complaint came to be registered as Criminal Complaint Case No. 412 of 2003, on which the Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered issue of process. ( 7 ) THE Petitioner herein approached the State Government and present Criminal Writ petition No. 263 of 2003 was filed for and on behalf of the present Petitioner by the Public prosecutor and Government Pleader of High court Bench at Nagpur. In this petition, orders which have been challenged are namely orders passed below Exh. 38 in Sessions Trial No. 234 of 1993 and order of issue of process in criminal Complaint Case No. 412 of 2003 passed on 10/1/2003. ( 8 ) IT is seen that this Court at admission hearing issued rule. The Petition came to be listed for final hearing on 24/3/2005, on which date, this Court passed the following order :- "learned APP is directed as follows : 1. Send a copy of Criminal Writ Petition no. 263 of 2003 to Shri. Ganesh Pathak, district Government Pleader, Akola. 2. Shri. Ganesh Pathak, District government Pleader, Akola is called upon to file parawise reply to the present Criminal writ Petition on affidavit. 3. He should also place on record whether government is convinced that the cost was liable to be paid by the Government and not by the Officer concerned and narrate as to why the cost was not directly paid by the government or reimbursed to the Officer concerted instead of filing this Petition, if the Govt. was satisfied about there being no lapse on the part of the concerned Asstt. was satisfied about there being no lapse on the part of the concerned Asstt. Director of Public Prosecution. 4. The Learned APP is directed to place for perusal of the Court the sanction papers of filing of present Criminal Writ Petition. 5. Compliance to be done on or before 31- 3-2005. Steno copy of this order be supplied to the learned APP. " ( 9 ) LEARNED AGP tendered for the perusal of the Court, the sanction papers. It has revealed therefrom that the proposal for filing Writ Petition was not forwarded through the District Government Pleader and it is on the say of the present Petitioner the government took decision to file the present petition. The Para-wise reply of the District government Pleader which was called is also furnished by him, in which the District government Pleader, he has specifically mentioned that: "2. . . . . . . . . . . IT is not disputed that on 23/12/2002, sessions Trial No. 234/96 is fixed for evidence before the Hon'ble Joint Distt. Judge and Additional Sessions judge, Akola. However, it is totally false that the District government Pleader and Public Prosecutor, akola had allotted the said case for conducting the trial and handed over the relevant papers and the charge-sheet to the petitioner at the 11th hours. In this respect it is submitted that the petitioner was working as I/c Assistant Director of prosecution and hence he is having his independent office and hence the matter which were allotted to the petitioner, those are being sent through the dak-book which is maintained by the Office. In due course of the absence of office and hence whatever trials were allotted to the petitioner then the case papers of the said trial and the concerned case diary used to sent to the office of Assistant Director of Prosecution situated at Akola through Dak Book. As per the dak book the papers and the case diary was immediately handed over to the petitioner as soon as it was received from the concerned police station. As per the dak book the said diary and case papers pertaining to the sessions trial no. 234/96 were sent on 21-12-2002 and on the same day those were duly received by the petitioner and he made endorsement to that effect in the said dak book. As per the dak book the said diary and case papers pertaining to the sessions trial no. 234/96 were sent on 21-12-2002 and on the same day those were duly received by the petitioner and he made endorsement to that effect in the said dak book. The concerned page of the said dak book is at serial number 71. Thus all the allegations made by the petitioner pertaining to the allotment of the trial at llth hours are denied and the same are false one. The copy of dak-book maintained by the office of the District government Pleader and Public Prosecutor, akola is submitting alongwith this reply is annexed-I. "it is seen from page 35 of the copy of Tapal book (Photo copy), which is signed by District government Pleader as True copy is placed on record in which the papers are shown received or delivered in the office of the Petitioner herein on 21-12-2002. Then petitioner has not explained as to how he claims that he received paper at 11 hours. ( 10 ) TODAY the case is called out for final hearing, Advocate Shri. M. R. Daga has caused his appearance and stated that he has filed Vakalatnama for the Petitioner and wants to argue the matter. This Court consequently discharged the learned Asstt. Public prosecutor from appearance as such for the petitioner on the condition that the State of maharashtra is arrayed as the Respondent. Learned Advocate Mr. Daga requested for leave to add which was granted and the State of Maharashtra has been arrayed as respondent in Criminal Writ Petition. ( 11 ) HEARD Shri. M. R. Daga Advocate at length. After long hearing strenuous efforts were made by Mr. Daga to persuade the Court to accept that there is no fault on his part. At the fag end, Mr. Daga sought time to have a brief conference with his client i. e. the petitioner, and hearing was therefore adjourned. Learned Advocate Shri. M. R. Daga has filed a pursis signed by the Petitioner and stating that the petitioner does not press the prayer clause (i) and (ii) are concerned, further that he tenderes unconditional apology for the circumstances which had led to file the application for adjournment and for not depositing the cost soon after the order was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and willingness to pay reasonable costs of this petition. Mr. Mr. Daga has also orally expressed remorse for and on behalf of the Petitioner for his conduct and approach towards the learned sessions Judge. ( 12 ) IN so far as the prayer clause containing para (iii) is concerned, it pertains to willful disobedience of lawful orders for which the learned Jt. District and Sessions Judge, akola, had filed a complaint before the Chief judicial Magistrate Akola, which is registered as Criminal Case No. 412/2002 in which the process was issued. In the pursis filed by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner today, he has expressed unconditional apology towards his failure to deposit the cost and other conduct which had led to filing of the complaint. Learned advocate Mr. Daga has also pointed out that the apology was already tendered before sessions Court in reply to notice of show cause and once again given in pursis. Learned advocate Mr. Daga further states that these expressions of apology be accepted and upon its acceptance and it would not be necessary to proceed with the Trial of Criminal Case no. 412 of 2003 and thereby interest of justice will be safeguarded. This Court is thus, satisfied that in view of the apology the matter need not be continued any more and inclined to quash the proceedings, as this Court feels that expression of apology and remorse by a Law officer could better serve the cause of justice than the regour of undergoing trial. ( 13 ) THE Judgment cannot be parted with without passing the order as to the payment of costs by the petitioner to the State government, having taken recourse to file the present petition as a State sponsored litigation. The petitioner has expressed before this Court willingness to pay reasonable costs as far as the State is concerned. The Petitioner, however, does not seem to be willing to pay the costs to the accused who has been dragged to the Court to defend the present writ petition and that task will have to be taken by the Court on its own. Interest of justice shall be met if the petitioner is directed to pay to the State respondent No. 4 quantified cost in a sum of rs. 5000/- on account of having put the machinery of the State of Maharashtra in motion for filing present Writ Petition as litigation sponsored and espoused by the State. Interest of justice shall be met if the petitioner is directed to pay to the State respondent No. 4 quantified cost in a sum of rs. 5000/- on account of having put the machinery of the State of Maharashtra in motion for filing present Writ Petition as litigation sponsored and espoused by the State. Learned APP Shri. T. R. Kankale states that it shall suffice if the amount of costs is paid to the High Court Legal Aid Sub- committee in its account in the office of the high Court, instead of payment to the State. Costs be deposited with the High Court Legal aid Sub-Committee within a period of 15 days. ( 14 ) AS far as payment of costs to the accused who are respondents no. l, 2 and 3 are concerned, the Petitioner shall pay a sum of rs. 2000/- by way of costs and this amount be paid to the Learned Advocate Shri. A. K. Somani who has represented the accused by drawing a Demand Draft in the name of learned advocate within 15 days. ( 15 ) RULE is made absolute accordingly, and the Criminal Complaint Case no. 412 of 1993 pending before the Chief judicial Magistrate, Akola, is hereby quashed and set aside conditional to payment of costs. Order accordingly.