1 (cr.appln4044/10) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4044 OF 2010 Sanjay Digambar Kulkarni .... Applicant. V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents. Mr. D.V. Sutar for the applicant. Mr. D.R. More, APP for the State. Mentioned, not on board: CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 13th September, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. 2. Applicant is challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur whereby he was pleased to allow the revision application and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint under section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the case was restored to the file. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that revision application was not maintainable. He invited my attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Gajanan Parshuram Chopade vs. Mahatma Jyotirao Phule Gramin Bigarsheti 2 (cr.appln4044/10) Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit1 4. In the present case, complaint was dismissed since the complainant and his advocate had remained absent and had not filed affidavit in lieu of evidence. The revision application was filed against this order. The applicant was represented by his advocate and, after hearing both sides, revision application was allowed. Now it is being urged that revision application was not maintainable. It is not open for the applicant now to raise this issue, after the revision application was allowed. Admittedly, though the applicant had an opportunity to raise this issue before the learned Sessions Court, this issue was not raised. In my view, therefore, this is not a fit case to interfere with the order passed by the Sessions Court in revision. 5. Criminal Application is accordingly dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 1 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 804 3 (cr.appln4044/10)