1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.428 of 1994. Devidas s/o Girdharilal Agrawal Age: 65 Yrs., occu. Trader R/o Mamaji Talkies Road, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. (deceased through L.Rs.) Lilabai Deviprasad Agrawal, Age: 66 Yrs., r/o as above. - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) Satyanarayan s/o Onkardas Agrawal, Age: 45 Yrs., occu. Trader. 2) Laxminarayan s/o Onkardas Agrawal, Age: 41 Yrs., occupation – Trader. 3) Radhesham s/o Onkardas Agrawal Age: 48 Yrs., occu. Trader. 4) Mrs.Sarswatibai w/o Onkardas Agrawal, Age: 65 Yrs. occupation – Household, All R/o Balaji Galli, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. 5) H.T.Pawar, Special Land Acquisition Officer Latur. 6) The State of Maharashtra. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.A.N.Nagargoje, Advocate for Petitioner; 2 Mr.S.S.Bora, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3; Respondent No.4 served. Mr.Shiras B. Kadu-Patil, Adv. h/for Mr.VD Hon,Adv. for Respondent No.5; Mr.PM Shinde, APP for Respondent No.6/State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 17th August, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1) Heard learned Counsel extensively. 2) An application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was moved before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First class in S.C.C.No. 4068/1990. The learned Judge, by order dated 25th February, 1994, below Exhibits-17 and 23 allowed the same to incorporate the names of the accused referred in Exhibit-17 and 23 and directed issuance of summons to the accused for offence under Section 365 of IPC. This order was tested in the revision before the learned Sessions Judge at Jalgaon in Criminal Revision Application No.136 of 1994. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in the light of the legal position, as contemplated under Section 3 319 of Cr.P.C., allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by learned JMFC below Exhibit-17 and 23 dated 25.2.1994 in S.C.C.No. 4068/1990. 3) The order also exonerates H.T.Pawar, City Survey Officer, respondent no.5 herein, who did not challenge the same, though Exhibit-17 refers to him. Since the learned Additional Sessions Judge was exercising revisional jurisdiction and the order of JMFC was suffering from legal infirmities, the exercise of the course adopted by the Additional Sessions Judge at Jalgaon is not erroneous and does not call for any interference. 4) In the situation, in which the parties are now placed, I do not see any reason to set aside the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon dated 30.09.1994 as the order is perfectly in terms of Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The terminology indicated to invoke section 319 of Cr.P.C. is of recording of evidence, which stage apparently was not adhered to before learned 4 JMFC. The position of law is made wide clear by the Apex Court in the matter of Kailash Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. - 2008 AIR (SCW) 1717 and in the judgment of Mohd. Shafi Vs. Mohd. Rafiq and Anr. - 2007 AIR (SCW) 3399. 5) In the result, there is no merit in the criminal writ petition, it is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. 6) Needless to add, the complainant’s recourse under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is available to him at appropriate stage. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/crwp428.94