IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.399 OF 2007 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.399 OF 2007 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.399 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant. Versus Pervez Adi Mehta & 16 Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for applicant. Mr.Shekhar A.Ingawale for respondent Nos.1,2,4,6 & 8. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 21st April, 2008. DATED : 21st April, 2008. DATED : 21st April, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned A.P.P. Mr.K.V.Saste for the applicant and Mr.Shekhar Ingawale for respondent Nos.1,2,4,6 & 8. 2. The respondents were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 407, 201 r/w. Section 34, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The respondents had filed discharge application before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the learned "Trial Judge"). The learned Trial Judge, by his order dated 28th March, 2007 discharged the respondents. Being aggrieved by this order dated 28th March, 2007, the State has preferred this revision. 3. I have heard learned A.P.P. Mr.Saste pressing for admission of the revision. 4. After having gone through the record and on the basis of the arguments advanced before this Court, it is clear that no material was placed before the learned Trial Judge to hold even, prima-facie, that the diesel oil in question was entrusted with respondents. If this is the position, no prima-facie case for a charge under Section 407 of the I.P.C. is made out. 5. After having gone through the impugned order dated 28th March, 2007, I am inclined to observe that the learned Trial Judge has considered the record in the proper perspective to hold that a case for discharge is made out. On the basis of the record before the Court as also the view expressed by the learned Trial Judge, no interference is required in the impugned order. Hence, revision will have to be dismissed in limine. Hence, I pass the following order :- O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R a) The revision is dismissed in limine. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)