* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 318 OF 2009 Shri.Mansingh Fattesingh Naik ....... Applicant V/s. State of Maharashtra ....... Respondents ============ Mr.J.Shekhar i/by. M/s. J.Shekhar & Co.,adv.for applicant. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP for State. CORAM : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 27TH JULY, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard counsels for both sides. 2. This Revision Application is filed to challenge correctness and legality of the order dated 16th July 2008 passed by the District Court rejecting the application for discharge on the ground that the same was not maintainable. 3. In the instant case, the application for discharge came to be filed about a year after the charges against the applicant were framed. Mr.Shekhar, the learned counsel for the applicant relies upon two decisions of this court, one in the case of Baburao Hari Pawar V/s. State of Maharashtra reported in 1987 * 2 * Cri.L.J.page 584 and Shetiyamma Pujari Dhotre V/s. State of Maharashtra reported in 1987 Mh.L.J.page 216 and submits that the learned Sessions Judge erred in holding that the application for discharge filed after framing of the charge was not maintainable as there is no time limit fixed for filing such application. The accused is not guilty unless he is proved to be so and if he is able to point out before the commencement of the trial that he has been falsely implicated and involved in the trial and that there is no prima-facie case made out against him, he is at liberty to ask for discharge. The learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the application relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Ratilal Bhanji Mithani V/s.State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in AIR 1979 SC page 94 observing that once the charge is framed, the Magistrate has no power under Section 227 CrPC or any other provision of the Code to cancel the charge and reverse the proceedings to the same stage of Section 253 and discharge the accused. In the two decisions cited by Mr.Shekhar, apparently, the decision of the Apex Court was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge deciding the two cases and hence it cannot be said that the two decisions relied upon by Mr.Shekhar lay down the correct law. The Apex Court in Ratilal’s (supra) case has observed as follows : “. Once a charge is framed, the Magistrate has no * 3 * power under Section 227 or any other provision of the Code to cancel the charge, and reverse the proceedings to the stage of Section 253 and discharge the accused. The trial in a warrant case starts with the framing of charge, prior to it the proceedings are only an enquiry. After the framing of charge if the accused pleads not guilty, the Magistrate is required to proceed with the trial in the manner provided in Section 254 to 258 to a logical end. Once a charge is framed in a warrant case, instituted either on complaint or a police report, the Magistrate has no power under the Code to discharge the accused and, thereafter he can either acquit or convict the accused unless he decides to proceed under Sections 349 and 362 of the Code of 1892 (which correspond to Sections 325 and 360 of the Code of of 1973).” The above binding mandate of the Apex Court was followed by the Sessions Court while dismissing the discharge application. There could not have been any other order on that application. To challenge such an order by filing the present revision application is clear abuse of process of law. Hence, the revision application is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/- (Rs.Five Thousand only). The costs to be deposited with High Court Legal Services Authority. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]