1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3118 OF 2009 Shashi Ramjilal Sharma & Ors. : Petitioners (Orig.Accused nos.1,2,6 & 7) V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents (Resp.no.2-Orig.Complainant) .... Mr.R.F.Lambay with Mr.K.T.Kukreja and Mr.Vikas K. Singh for the petitioners. Mr.S.R.Shinde, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1. Mr.Subhash Jha for respondent no.2. ... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2010. P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard by consent. 2. The limited grievance raised in the present petition is that though the learned Magistrate by a well-reasoned order had refused to issue process, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in revision has set aside the order and directed issuance of process and that too without giving any notice to the present petitioners. 2 3. This Court in the case of Shriram Nagordhar Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2006 All MR (Cri.) 1311) and in the case of Wajidulla s/o. Ibadulla & Ors. v. Alamkhan s/o. Raufkhan & Ors. (2006 All MR (Cri) 3035) has taken the view that the Sessions Judge in revisional jurisdiction cannot pass an order to the prejudice of any person without giving notice to him. 4. Mr.Subhash Jha, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2, fairly concedes the settled legal position and further fairly concedes that the law as laid down by the single Judge of this Court has also been approved bay the apex Court in the case of Raghu Raj Singh Rousha v. Shivam Sundaram Promoters (P) Ltd. [(2009) 2 SCC 363]. 5. In that view of the matter, the impugned order which is admittedly without issuing any notice to the petitioners is not sustainable in law. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (i) and (ii). The matter is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge for deciding the revision filed by the respondent no.2, in accordance with law, and the aforesaid judgements of this Court. B. R. GAVAI, J.