[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.3041 OF 2007 Shri.Hasmukhlal Bhavarlal Semlani and Anr. ..Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.Karnik with Mr.A.H.H.Ponda advocate for applicants Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : OCTOBER 8, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 8, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 8, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant-original accused. 2. The applicant is facing prosecution in a case under sections 406, 420, 506-II of IPC. The said case is numbered as 153/SW/2004 which is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 27th Court, Mulund Mumbai. In the said case, an application for discharge was preferred by the applicant before the learned Magistrate. The said application came to be rejected, hence, the applicant approached the Sessions Court in [-2-] revision. The revision application came to be rejected by order dated 12.6.2007, hence, applicant has approached this Court by way of present application. 3. The contention of the applicant is that the learned Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that it was not maintainable and he has overlooked the provisions of Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C. However, on perusal of the order of the learned Magistrate, it is seen that in para 6, the learned Magistrate has considered the merits of the matter and thereafter rejected the application on merits. On perusal of the complaint and the orders passed by both the Courts below, I find that both the orders are correct, proper and legal and no interference is called for as there is sufficient material to proceed against the applicant. Hence, application is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]