bsb 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 WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2391 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 2391 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 2391 OF 2007 Harshwardhan Group Managing Director, M/s.Group 4 Securities Guarding Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioners v/s State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Vishwajit P. Sawant for the petitioners. Smt.A.A.Mane, A.P.P. for the respondent State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 4TH APRIL, 2008 4TH APRIL, 2008 4TH APRIL, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. This petition challenges the dismissal of the Criminal Revision Application No. 396 of 2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, by passing the following order: "Appellants and their counsel absent. Since beginning process for service of notice on respondents not paid. Hence revision stands dismissed for default." This order was passed on 17.10.2007. 2. Mr.Sawant, learned advocate for the petitioner admits that there was a delay in payment of process 2 charge but submits that it should not lead to dismissal of the revision application. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Lal Kapoor v/s Madan Lal Kapoor v/s Madan Lal Kapoor v/s Rajiv Rajiv Rajiv Thapar & ors., reported in (2007) 7 SCC 623. Thapar & ors., reported in (2007) 7 SCC 623. Thapar & ors., reported in (2007) 7 SCC 623. In this judgment, the Supreme Court has referred to its earlier decisions in the case of Bani Singh v/s State of Bani Singh v/s State of Bani Singh v/s State of U.P. U.P. U.P. reported in (1996) 4 SCC 720 reported in (1996) 4 SCC 720 reported in (1996) 4 SCC 720 and Parasuram Patel Parasuram Patel Parasuram Patel v/s v/s v/s State of Orissa, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 664 State of Orissa, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 664 State of Orissa, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 664, wherein it has been held that a criminal appeal should not be dismissed in default but should be decided on merits. The Supreme Court has observed that the reasoning in those judgments in respect of appeals would apply with equal force to criminal revision applications. In the present case, the revision was dismissed for default only on the ground that the process for service of notice was not paid. 3. In these circumstances, the Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, has committed an error apparent on the face of the record for dismissal of the revision. 4. The petition is accordingly allowed. 5. The order dated 17.10.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Revision Application No.396 of 2006 is set aside and the revision application 3 is restored to file. 6. The petitioner shall pay the process charges within a week from today. 7. Petition disposed of accordingly.