IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 190 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 11 OF 2010 SHRI YESHWANT TORASKAR ... Applicant Versus STATE OF GOA & 2 ORS., ... Respondents Shri V. A. Lawande, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for Respondent Nos.1 and 3. Shri A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 3rd August, 2010 P.C.:- Heard. Shri V. A. Lawande, learned Counsel who appears for the Applicant states that there is a mistake in the Order dated 20-7-2010 by which this Court has directed the "Court Receiver to hand over the possession to Respondent No.2 in accordance with the Order of the Civil Court". Learned Counsel submits that, that part of the Order was not dictated. In support of his submission, Shri Lawande, learned Counsel has placed reliance on Jagvir Singh and others v. State(Delhi Admn.)((2007) 5 SCC 359). Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel on behalf of Respondent No.2 submits that the application is not maintainable as the impugned Order cannot be corrected in review jurisdiction. Learned Counsel further submits that the Judgment in Jagvir Singh and others v. State(Delhi Admn.)(supra) was passed on concession, and, therefore is not applicable to the facts of the case. In my view, the application needs to be rejected on two counts. Firstly, the Judgment dated 20-7-2010 cannot be corrected in review jurisdiction.(See Venus Steel Products through its Proprietor v. Michael Francis Pinheiro(2005(2) Bom.C.R.(Cri) 901). Secondly, even in case the learned Additional Sessions Judge was silent as regards the handing over possession of the suit property to Respondent No.2, this Court was bound to give a further direction to bring the Order of the learned Sessions Judge in conformity with the Order of the Civil Court, and in that light, no fault can be found with the Order. Application dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.