Ndm 1 revn.42.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 42 OF 2009 Hitesh Hasmukh Karelia. ... APPLICANT Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ... RESPONDENT -------------- Smt. Anjali Patil, Advocate for Applicant. Ms. S.V. Gajare, APP for State. -------------- CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 11 th September, 2009. P.C. 1 In the present case, it is submitted by learned counsel for the Applicants that there is no evidence on record that accused have committed offence punishable under Section 255 of Indian Penal Code. Offences under which the accused are prosecuted are all triable by the Magistrate except Section 255. The application of the Applicants- Accused requesting discharge of Section 255 of the Indian Penal Code was rejected by the learned Sessions judge. Therefore, this Revision Application is filed challenging the said application. The learned Prosecutor was directed to find out, whether there is offence to put that Ndm 2 revn.42.09.sxw the accused were involved in the offence of preparation of counterfeiting for contemplating under Section 255 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Prosecutor points out that the application of discharge was rejected in July, 2008 and thereafter, in January, 2009, the Revision Application was filed. However, pending application, the charge was framed by the learned Sessions Judge on 05 th March, 2009. The learned Prosecutor makes a statement that total four witnesses are examined by the Sessions Court. The learned counsel appearing for the Applicants -Accused submits that as trial has commenced when the matter was pending for the admission, it is to be heard on merits. 2 The submissions of learned counsel appearing for the Applicants cannot accepted as there was no stay granted by this Court and moreover considering progress in the matter, Criminal Revision Application is rejected. [ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J ]