IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1515 OF 20008. WRIT PETITION NO. 1515 OF 20008. WRIT PETITION NO. 1515 OF 20008. Shri Arvind Agrawal & Anr. ..Petitioners. versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.P. L. Singh, for the Petitioners. Mr.D.P.Adsule, APP, for the Respondent - State. Respondent No.2 is present in-person. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 8TH AUGUST,2008. : 8TH AUGUST,2008. : 8TH AUGUST,2008. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the second Respondent appearing in person. As a limited controversy is involved in this Writ Petition, the same is taken up for final disposal. 2. The Petitioners filed a Criminal Revision Application before the Sessions Court at Mumbai. By the impugned Judgment and Order dated 1st July 2008, the Criminal Revision Application has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The Criminal Revision Application has been dismissed only on the ground that the Petitioners had given an undertaking to produce original summons and a certified copy of the order passed by the learned - 2 - Trial Judge and that the certified copy of the order was not produced before the Revisional Court. The learned Judge observed that though the revision was presented on 6th December 2006, the same had remained pending for 17 months. The learned Judge also observed that:- " Needless to say that the applicant still has remedy open before the Trial Judge agitating the matter right from making out is to continue after issue of process. Hence order." 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners invited my attention to the Roznama of the proceedings of Revision Application and in particular the Roznama of 12th April 2007 which records that a certified copy of the complaint alongwith the Court’s order passed thereon was tendered by the Advocate for the Petitioners. An order has been recorded in the Roznama that the Revision Application shall be registered if all the objections are removed. It appears that later on, the Revision Application which was on stamp number, was registered as Criminal Revision Application No.538/2007. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners - 3 - has produced for my perusal another certified copy of the complaint which shows that the certified copy also contains a copy of order passed by the learned Magistrate of issuing process. He, therefore, submitted that though the compliance was made by the Petitioners, without noticing the compliance, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the Revision Application. The second Respondent appearing in person states that when the Revision Application was placed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the Advocate for the Petitioners could not point out to the learned Sessions Judge that a certified copy of the complaint and order has been already filed and therefore, the learned Judge has passed the impugned order. He submitted that the matter is being unnecessarily delayed and therefore, no interference is called for. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. I have perused the Roznama. The Roznama dated 12th April 1997 clearly records that a certified copy of the complaint alongwith the order on the complaint was tendered on record. My attention has been also invited to the application dated 12th April 2007 filed by the Advocate for the Petitioners before the Sessions Court for seeking permission to produce - 4 - certified copies of the complaint, exemption application and order issuing bailable warrant. Thus, it appears to me that a compliance was made on 12th April 2007 by the Petitioners by filing a certified copy of the complaint and the order passed on the complaint. It is true that the Advocate for the Petitioners ought to have brought this fact to the notice of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Assuming that the Advocate did not point out the said fact, the Petitioners cannot be allowed to suffer as they had made the compliance on 12th April 2007. As far as observation made by the learned Sessions Judge in paragraph no.2 of the order is concerned, the law is well-settled. There is no remedy available to the Petitioners before the learned Magistrate for challenging the order issuing process. 5. In my view, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken hyper-technical view of the matter and has dismissed the Application without verifying the record. The Revision Application could not have been dismissed by passing the impugned order. Therefore, the only option left is to restore the Revision Application and to direct the expeditious disposal of the Revision Application. - 5 - 6. Hence, I pass the following order :- (1) The impugned Judgment and Order dated 1st July 2008 is quashed and set aside and Criminal Revision Application No.538/2007 is restored to the file of the Sessions Court. (2) The Petitioners and the second Respondent are directed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 26th August 2008 on 11.00 a.m. (3) The learned Judge will hear and dispose of the Revision Application as expeditiously as possible and in any event, on or before 13th October 2008. (4) All contentions of the parties on merits of the Revision Application are expressly kept open. (5) The parties and the learned Additional Sessions Judge to act upon an authenticated copy of the order. [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]