:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.990 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.990 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.990 OF 2008 Mr.Santosh Babanrao Kapadi & Anr. ...Petitioners. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Ashok Jadhav , adv. for the Petitioners. Mr.A.S.Gadkari, APP for the Respondent/State. Mr.B.D.Joshi, adv. for the Respondent No.7. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE B.H.MARLAPALLE B.H.MARLAPALLE & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE: 9th June, 2008. DATE: 9th June, 2008. DATE: 9th June, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Jadhav the learned counsel for the petitioners, who are the parents of Jayesh Santosh Kapadi. It has been recorded by the learned Principal Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.104 of 2007 that the death of Jayesh was homicidal. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 were the accused in Sessions Case No.104 of 2007 and they have been acquitted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge vide its judgment and order dated 20-9-2007. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for the following reliefs: a) In the interest of justice and to promote the humanity cause of the society and to connote noble sense of justice in the society the :2: Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct by appropriate writ to respondents to reinvestigate the case of the petitioner afresh and retry the accused i.e. respondent nos.7 and 8. b) The respondent nos.1 and 2 be directed to carry the investigation of by independent and separate C.I.D. Branch or a separate competent team of the respondent nos.1 and 2. As noted earlier, the Sessions Case No.104 of 2007 has resulted in acquittal so far as respondent nos.7 and 8 are concerned and the State Government has intimated to the petitioners that it does not desire to file an appeal against the said acquittal. In these circumstances, the petitioners’ remedy to file a revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. is not taken away and, therefore, we do not deem it appropriate to entertain this petition. 2. Hence, the petition is rejected with liberty to the petitioners to file a revision application. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)