IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.98 OF 2007. Mr.Noor Mohd. Shah. ..Petitioner. versus 1. M/s. Parshwa Corporation. 2. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondents. .... Mr.M.J.Parbari, for the Petitioner. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. Gajendra Jadhav, for the Respondent No.1. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 16th September 2008. : 16th September 2008. : 16th September 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By order dated 21st August 2008, this Court directed that the Petition shall be finally heard at the stage of admission. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the first Respondent. The Petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in a complaint filed by the first Respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. On 20th September 2004, the Petitioner was convicted. Initially, the Petitioner preferred an appeal which was withdrawn, as the same was not maintainable. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a : 2 : Revision Application before the learned Sessions Court. By the impugned Judgment and Order dated 6th November 2004, the said Revision Application has been dismissed on merits. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that on the date on which the Revision Application was dismissed, the Advocate for the Petitioner and the Petitioner were absent and though they were no heard, the Revision Application was dismissed on merits. He, therefore, submitted that by setting aside the impugned order, the Revision Application may be ordered to be heard on merits. The learned Counsel appearing for the first Respondent opposed the Petition by pointing out that the Revision Application has been dismissed only on account of default of the Petitioner. He submitted that no indulgence be shown. 4. I have considered the submissions. The Petitioner has been convicted and he has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. He has been directed to pay compensation of Rs.60,000/-. Initially, the Petitioner preferred an appeal which was withdrawn as the same was not maintainable and a Revision Application was immediately filed. It is true : 3 : that the Petitioner and his Advocate were absent when the Revision Application was fixed for hearing. Considering the fact that there is an order of conviction against the Petitioner, one more opportunity deserves to be given to the Petitioner to prosecute the Revision Application. 5. Hence, I pass the following order :- (i) The impugned Judgment and Order dated 6th November 2004 is quashed and set aside and the Criminal Revision Application No.162/2004 is restored to the file. (ii) The parties are directed to appear before the learned Principal Judge of the City Civil Court at Mumbai on 7th October 2008 at 11.00 a.m. The learned Principal Judge may himself take up the Revision Application for hearing or he may assign it to another Court as per administrative convenience. It is made clear that no fresh notice of the date fixed will be issued to the Petitioner and he should remain present in the Sessions Court either personally or through his Advocate. : 4 : (iii) The Revision Application shall be heard afresh as expeditiously as possible. The Revision Application shall be disposed of on or before 24th December 2008. (iv) All contentions of the parties on merits of the Revision Application are kept open. (v) Before 7th October 2008, the Advocate for the Petitioner will serve a complete copy of the Criminal Revision Application to the first Respondent as well as to the Advocate appearing for the first Respondent. (vi) Ad-interim relief granted by this Court on 24th January 2007 will continue to operate till disposal of the Revision Application. (vii) The Petition is allowed in above terms. (A.S.Oka,J)