IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2635 of 2005 Mr.P.Sathyanarayanan .... Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra and Ors...Respondents Mr.Prosper D’Souza k/b K.O.Devassi Advocate for Petitioner Mr.M.S.Mhambre A.P.P. for State CORAM:SMT.V.K.TAHILRMANI,J. DATED:3rd August 2005 P.C. P.C. P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned advocate for the Petitioner, and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The Petitioner has prayed for quashing of complaint i.e. Complaint No.493/S/03 which is pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Bombay. In the said case process has been issued against the Petitioner under Section 138 read with 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act. 3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has submitted that the learned Magistrate erred in issuing process against the Petitioner. He has further submitted that if order issuing process is quashed the proceedings in respect of Case No.493/S/03 would come to an end. 4. In the present case the Petitioner has preferred an application before the learned Magistrate for recalling of process. The learned Magistrate rejected the same in view of decision of Apex Court in the case of Adalat Prasad V/s Rooplal Jindal and Ors. 2004 (4) Mh.L.J. 274 2004 (4) Mh.L.J. 274 2004 (4) Mh.L.J. 274 In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Adalat Prasad (supra) it is clear that the Magistrate does not have the power to recall the process. In this view of the matter no fault can be found with the order of the learned Magistrate rejecting the application for recall of process. 5. Howevr, for the reasons recorded in my order dated 13th June, 2005 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 213 of 2005 and order dated 21st June 2005 passed in Criminal application NO.550 of 2005, the Petitioner has an efficacious remedy of preferring revision against the order of Magistrate issuing process. Hence, in my opinion, it would be appropriate that the Petitioner prefers revision before the concerned Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate issuing process. 6. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to prefer revision before the concerned Sessions Court. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner states that the necessary revision would be preferred within a period of three weeks from toady. In view of this statement, the trial Court shall not proceed with the trial for a period of three weeks from today. It is made clear that the revision shall be preferred in respect of impugned order of the Magistrate issuing process against the Petitioner and not in respect of order of the Magistrate dated 6-10-2004 rejecting the application for recalling process. 5. On the necessary revision being preferred by the Petitioner before the concerned Sessions Court, the concerned Sessions Court shall dispose of the same on merits after hearing necessary parties. 6. Office to issue an authenticated copy of this order to the parties. 7. Petition is disposed of. (SMT.V.K.TAHAILRAMANI,J.)