( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.323 OF 1999 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.323 OF 1999 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.323 OF 1999 Vasu P. Kukreja .. Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.Ganesh Gole for the petitioner. Mr.K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for the respondent - State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Ganesh Gole appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for the respondent - State. 2. The petitioner was shown as an accused in Criminal Case No.453 of 1988 in the Court of J.M.F.C., 1st Court, Kalyan and was required to face charges under Sections 279, 337, 426 of the Indian Penal Code and charges under the Motor Vehicles Act. While the case was pending before the learned J.M.F.C., 1st Court, Kalyan (hereinafter referred to as the learned "Trial Judge"), on 14.10.1996, the learned Trial Judge ( 2 ) observed that the case is old and that the same is required to be stopped under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the accused was attending the Court regularly but the witnesses were remaining absent. By this, the learned Trial Judge on 14.10.1996 passed an order thereby stopping the case under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Judge acquitted the petitioner and his bail bonds were cancelled. It is seen that on the very date i.e. 14.10.1996, an order came to be passed by the learned Trial Judge thereby closing the case in view of the judgement in the case of common causes AIR 1996 SC AIR 1996 SC AIR 1996 SC 1619 1619 1619 and that formal order was passed on 14.10.1996 thereby discharging the petitioner. 3. After the aforesaid developments, the case was again taken up by the learned Trial Judge on 11.4.1997 and this time because of review judgement in common causes, the learned Trial Judge passed an order thereby restoring the case to the file of his Court on account of a change in law and the learned Trial Judge ordered issuance of summons to the accused through Court. The petitioner has challenged this order dated 11.4.1997 on the ground that it was not open for the learned Trial Judge to issue summons, particularly when on 14.10.1996 the case was stopped under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. by which the accused was acquitted. ( 3 ) 4. I have heard learned Advocate Mr.Gole appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.Saste for the State. In order to clear the doubt about the veracity of the order dated 14.10.1996 being the order by which the petitioner was acquitted, I perused the original record and it is noticed that on the original charge-sheet, the hand written order is passed thereby acquitting the petitioner and cancelling his bail bonds i.e. the order, the text of which is annexed to the petition at page 12. The next part of the matter is surprising that after having passed the order on 14.10.1996 acquitting the accused, the very learned Trial Judge passed an order on 14.10.1996 closing the case by granting the benefit of the common causes judgement to the petitioner and, thereafter, again re-opened the case and issued summons by order dated 11.4.1997. 5. Learned Advocate Mr.Gole is right in arguing that once the learned Trial Judge passed an order on 14.10.1996 on the charge-sheet by stopping the case under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. and acquitted the petitioner, there was no question of the learned Trial Judge passing an order by giving the petitioner the benefit of the common causes case and as such subsequent developments in terms of order dated ( 4 ) 11.4.1997 could not have taken place and the impugned order issuing summons is legal. 6. Mr.Saste, learned A.P.P. tried to support the order dated 11.4.1997 by contending that the view taken by the learned Trial Judge as regards the restoration of the case which at one point of time was closed by giving benefit of the common causes judgement was not proper. 7. I am inclined to accept the submissions of the learned Advocate Mr.Gole. The record shows two orders passed on the same date i.e. on 14.10.1996, one order acquitting the accused and other order closing the case by giving the benefit of the common causes to the petitioner. There is no material placed before this Court so as to point out as to which order was first at that point of time. Keeping in view the factual aspect, the petitioner will have undoubtedly the benefit of that order dated 14.10.1996 by which the petitioner was acquitted. Once, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner deserves to be acquitted, there was no question of giving benefit of cases of common causes and naturally, there was no question of reopening the case. It is difficult to understand as to why two orders came to be passed as mentioned above on 14.10.1996. Be that as it may, ( 5 ) once the competent Court passes an order acquitting the petitioner, that order must inure to the benefit of the petitioner and subsequent developments in terms of the order dated 11.4.1997 cannot operate against the petitioner. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, impugned order dated 11.4.1997 will have to be set aside and to that extent, the petition will have to be granted. Hence, I pass the following order. a) Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (c) i.e. to say that the order dated 11.4.1997 passed by the learned Trial Judge in C.C.No.453 of 1988 is quashed and set aside. Since the petitioner is already acquitted, there is no question of petitioner facing trial for the offences for which he had to face the trial once upon a time. The bail bonds of the petitioner stands cancelled. 9. Criminal Revision Application No.323 of 1999 stands disposed off accordingly in the above terms. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)