acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 392 OF 2009 Onkar Tourists Resorts Ltd & Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Bank of Maharashtra & Ors.. ..Respondent. --- Mr.S.V. Kotwal h/f Mr. M.S. Mohite, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.B. Kocheta, for Respondent No.1. Mr. A.A. Mane, APP. --- CORAM: V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED: 24 TH SEPTEMBER 2009 P.C.: 1 By this Petition, the Petitioners challenged the order rendered by Ad-hoc Sessions Judge, Satara in Criminal Revision Application No.213 of 1998, whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision application on the ground that it is not maintainable. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. It is not necessary to elaborately set out rival contentions. The point that is involved in this petition is short one. The Petitioners challenged the order rendered by the Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No.685 of 1998 regarding issuance of process against them. The learned 1 Ad-hoc Sessions Judge held that such order of interlocutory nature and therefore revision application was not maintainable. 4. The basis of the impugned judgment is improper and not acceptable. It is well settled that order regarding issuance of process is not interlocutory nature. Such order terminates the proceedings at that stage when the process of taking cognizance is completed as an end product thereof. Obviously the view taken by the learned Ad-hoc Sessions Judge is patently erroneous. The learned Sessions Judge seems to have referred to the case of “Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal (reported in 2004(4) Maharashtra Law Journal, 274.” The learned Sessions Judge failed to see that the Apex Court has not held that the revisional jurisdiction is barred in such cases where the order of process is challenged. The impugned judgment, therefore, suffer patently legality and is liable to be interfered. 5. In the result, the Petition is allowed. The impugned judgment is quashed. The revision application is restored to its original position by remanding the matter to the court of Sessions with directions that same may be heard expeditiously and be decided on its own merits within six weeks after receipt of order. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR, J ] 2 3