1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION 321 OF 2008 Balkrishna @ Krishna Narassayya Baikade .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Parvez Ubharye for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh More, A.P.P for the respondent. CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22nd June 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant. The challenge in Criminal Revision Application is to an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge by which the application for discharge made by the applicant (accused no.4) has been rejected. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that except for evidence of telephonic conversation between the applicant and the co-accused there is no evidence to proceed against the applicant. He submitted that the alleged telephonic conversation has admittedly taken place after the 2 date of offence. 2. The applicant is prosecuted for the offences under section 304, 328, 272, 273, 120 of the Indian Penal Code alongwith offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act. This is a case where allegation is that after consuming illicit liquor large number of persons have died and/or suffered serious ailments. Merely because the alleged telephonic conversation has taken place after the date of incident, it is not sufficient to say that the evidence of telephonic conversation is no evidence to connect the applicant with the offence. The allegation of the prosecution is of conspiracy and therefore this is a case in which it cannot be said that there is no material to proceed against the said applicant. 3. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant pointed out the charge framed by the learned Sessions Judge on 07 th June 2007 and submitted that charge could not have been framed against the applicant for any of the offences. Admittedly, the said order passed by 3 the learned Sessions Judge framing charge has been set aside. Therefore, before framing charge afresh, it is obvious that the learned Judge will have to apply his mind on the basis of material on record. As there is no error in the impugned order, revision application is rejected. However, all contentions of the applicant on merits are kept open. (A.S.OKA,J)