IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1273 OF 2008 Shri Subhash Ramchandra Koli .. Petitioner Vs. Jat Doordarsion Pariwar Nag Bigar Sheti Pat Sanstha Maryadet Jat through its Secretary, Sau.Mina Gopalrao Desai & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.V.Y.Jadhav for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Sale for respondent no.1. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 26th September 2008. : 26th September 2008. : 26th September 2008. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. In view of the earlier order dated 29th August 2008, the petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. The 1st respondent filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) against the petitioner. The process was issued on the said complaint. The trial commenced. On 30th November 2007 the 1st respondent filed a pursis recording closure of his evidence. Thereafter an application was made by the 2 1st respondent at Exhibit 50 under section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for leading further evidence. The said application was opposed by the petitioner. By order dated 13th May 2008 the said application was rejected by the learned Magistrate. The 1st respondent filed a revision application for challenging the said order. The said revision application has been allowed by order dated 16th May 2008 and the application made by the 1st respondent at Exhibit 50 has been allowed. 3. The challenge to the impugned order by the petitioner is on two grounds. The first is that considering the reliefs sought in the revision application, the petitioner should have been heard by the learned Sessions Judge. The second submission is that the order passed below application at Exhibit 50 was purely an interlocutory order and therefore, a revision application under section 397 of the said Code of 1973 was not maintainable. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that revision application was maintainable. However, so far as first submission is concerned, he has left it to this Court. 3 5. The learned Sessions Judge has relied upon section 403 of the said Code of 1973 for not issuing notice to the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner could not have claimed hearing as a matter of right and the Sessions Court had discretion of not issuing notice. However, in the present case the Sessions Court was considering a case where permission was sought by the complainant to lead further evidence after filing of evidence closure pursis. The petitioner who is facing the trial is prejudicially affected by order of permitting the 1st respondent to lead further evidence. Considering the facts of the case and considering what is observed by this Court in paragraph 18 of the decision in the case of Shriram Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1311), the learned Sessions Judge ought to have heard the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 6. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) The impugned judgment and order dated 15th May 2008 is quashed and set aside and Criminal Revision Application No.153 of 2008 is restored to the file. (ii) The parties are directed to appear before the 4 learned Sessions Judge at Sangli on 20th October 2008 at 11.00 a.m for fixing the schedule of hearing of revision application. It is made clear that no further notice of the date fixed will be served to the parties. (iii) The learned Sessions Judge will hear and decide the revision application afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The revision application will be decided expeditiously and in any event before end of January 2009. (iv) All contentions on merits including the contention of the petitioner on maintainability of the criminal revision application are expressly kept open. (v) Writ Petition is partly allowed in above terms with no orders as to costs. (vi) Parties and Sessions Court to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. (A.S. Oka,J) 5