(1) CRI.APP. 4378.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4378 OF 2010 Bhagwan S/o Kachru Borude Age : 58 years, Occu.: Retired, R/o. Sarswati Colony, Near Railway Station, Juna Jalna, Tq. and Dist. Jalna .. Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served upon GP High Court Bench at Aurangabad) .. Respondent ... Mr. P.K. Koshti, Advocate h/f. Mrs. Sadhana S. Jadhav, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 28TH OCTOBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard learned Advocate. 2. The Application is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking discharge in Criminal Case bearing RCC no.341 of 2004. It is pertinent to notice that the applicant has not challenged the orders rendered by the learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge in the context of his Application for discharge and the Criminal (2) CRI.APP. 4378.2010 Revision Petition no. 28 of 2009. The revisional Court confirmed rejection of his Application for discharge as ordered by the trial Court. The prayer clause runs as follows:- “(A) This Application be allowed; (B) The applicant be discharged in R.C.C. no. 341 of 2004 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna for the offence punishable u/sec. 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 and 406 of the IPC; (C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this application further proceeding in R.C.C. no. 341 of 2004 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna be stayed in the interest of justice; (D) Pending hearing and final disposal of this application Interim Relief in terms of prayer clause-C be granted in favour of the applicant in the interest of justice; (E) Any other relief for which the present applicant is entitled for, be granted in the interest of justice" 3. In absence of any prayer seeking challenge to the aforesaid orders of the learned Magistrate and (3) CRI.APP. 4378.2010 the Sessions Court, the present Application cannot be entertained as this Court cannot consider the request for discharge for the first time without considering the merits of the matter rendered by the Courts below. 4. Apart from the above fact situation, the applicant is a retired Block Education Officer and was working in supervisory capacity. He alleges that he had no domain over the amount which was received. He alleges that he had no role to play in the disbursement of the amount. The relevant contentions of the applicant have been considered by the Courts below. No substantial reason exists to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction in favour of the applicant. Application is dismissed. 5. The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that liberty may be granted to file afresh Revision in this Court. The request is turned down. Leave refused. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp