..(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 APPLICATION NO.955 OF 2007 Mr.Ram Kotak & Anr. ..Applicants. Versus Versus Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents. .... None for the Applicants. Smt.V.R.Bhosale, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : MARCH 28, 2008. DATED : MARCH 28, 2008. DATED : MARCH 28, 2008. P.C.: 1. None appears for the applicants. Perused the application. 2. The applicants have challenged the order issuing process against them under Section 138 read with Sections 141 & 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The said process has been issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai in Criminal Case No.3134/SS of 2005. 3. For the reasons recorded in the the case of V.K.Jain and others Vs. Pratap V. Padode, V.K.Jain and others Vs. Pratap V. Padode, V.K.Jain and others Vs. Pratap V. Padode, ..(2).. reported in 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, reported in 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, reported in 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court, I am of the opinion that the applicants have an efficacious remedy of preferring revision against the order of Magistrate issuing process. Hence, in my view, it would be appropriate that the applicants prefer revision before the concerned Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate issuing process. 4. Liberty is granted to the applicants to prefer the necessary revision before the concerned Sessions Court. On the necessary revision being preferred by the applicants before the concerned Sessions Court, the concerned Sessions Court after hearing necessary parties shall dispose of the matter on merits. 5. Application is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)