IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1739 OF 2007 Mr.Shree Narayan Baheti & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. Polychem Ltd & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.M.P.Dalvi for the petitioners. Mr.Amit Desai i/by Mr.Prakash Naik for the respondent No.1. Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 11th September 2008. : 11th September 2008. : 11th September 2008. P.C.: . Rule. The learned advocate on record for the 1st respondent waives service. Taken up for hearing forthwith. 2. The 1st respondent filed a complaint alleging commission of an offence under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. On the said complaint the learned Magistrate issued process. An application was made on behalf of some of the accused including the petitioners for recalling the order of issue of process. The said application was rejected by the learned trial Judge by rightly observing that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order issuing process. A revision application was filed by the present petitioners before the Sessions Court for : 2 : challenging the order of learned Magistrate by which process was issued on the complaint. By the judgment and order dated 13th July 2006, the revision application filed by the petitioners has been rejected. 3. After having heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I find from the perusal of the impugned judgment and order that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dealt with the revision application in a manner which is far from being satisfactory. From paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment it appears that the learned Sessions Judge was under an impression that the revision application was directed against the order of the learned Magistrate rejecting the aplication for recall of process. He has ignored that the challenge in the revision application was to an order issuing process. The perusal of the impugned judgment and order shows that the learned Judge has not even properly considered the averments made in the complaint to ascertain whether a case is made out for issuing process against the petitioners by invoking section 141 of the said Act of 1881. Only on these grounds, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. The revision application will have to be restored for hearing the same afresh. : 3 : 4. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) The impugned judgment and order dated 13th July 2006 is quashed and set aside and Criminal Revision Application No.764 of 2005 is restored to the file of the Sessions Court. (ii) The parties to the revision application are directed to appear before the learned Principal Judge of the City Civil Court on 08th October 2008 at 11.00 a.m. The learned Judge may himself hear the revision application or may assign it to any other Court as per his administrative convenience. (iii) The revision application shall be heard afresh in accordance with law. (iv) The revision application shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and in any event on or before 24th December 2008. (v) All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. : 4 : (vi) The writ petition is allowed in above terms. (vii) The concerned Court to act upon an authenticated copy of this judgment and order. (A.S.Oka,J)