IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2022 OF 2008 Excel Poly Print Industries .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Nitesh Bhutekar i/by Mr.Uday P. Warunjikar for the Applicant. Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P for the State. Mr.Amit Jambhotkar for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 01st September 2008. JUDGMENT: . Heard advocate for the applicant and learned advocate for the 2nd and 3rd respondents. I have also heard the learned A.P.P for the State. The 2nd and 3rd respondents have been arraigned as accused in a complaint filed by the applicant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. 2. An application was made by the applicant at Exhibit 80 before the trial Court contending therein that the 2nd and 3rd respondents have not taken any steps to examine defence witnesses and therefore their evidence be treated as closed. An application was made : 2 : by the 2nd and 3rd respondents at Exhibit 82 praying for issuing appropriate process against the defence witnesses. The said application at Exhibit 82 was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 10th April 2008. By the said order, the trial Court directed that the evidence of 2nd and 3rd respondents was closed and the complaint was ordered to be placed for arguments. An application was made by the 2nd and 3rd respondents on the same day for setting aside the earlier order dated 10th April 2008 passed below Exhibit 82 and for issuing witness summons to the defence witnesses. The said application was rejected by the learned trial Judge by an order dated 29th April 2008. 3. A revision application under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents before the Sessions Court for challenging the orders passed by the trial Court on 10th April 2008 on application at Exhibit 80 and Exhibit 82. The said revision application was not admitted. Infact, an order was passed on the said revision application on 29th May 2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge directing that the advocate for the revision applicants will have to be heard on the point of tenability of the revision application. However, on 05th June 2008 the : 3 : revision application was disposed of by the Sessions Court by issuing a direction to the learned Magistrate to grant a chance to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to lead defence evidence. The learned Judge directed that service of witness summons to the witnesses be allowed by hand. 4. The grievance of the applicant is that the said order was passed in a revision application which was not maintainable. It is submitted that the revision application was not even admitted and the said order was passed which has the effect of setting aside the order dated 10th April 2008 passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned counsel appearing for 2nd and 3rd respondents is unable to satisfy this Court that the revision application filed by the said respondents was maintainable. He, however, submitted that all that Sessions Court has done is to grant one more opportunity to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to lead evidence. He, therefore, submitted that no interference is called for. 5. I have considered the submissions. On plain reading of the impugned order passed on the revision application, it is apparent that the said order has the effect of setting aside the orders passed by the learned : 4 : Magistrate on 10th April 2008. The impugned order has been passed on the revision application without admitting the revision application for final hearing. Moreover, the revision application under section 397 of the said Code was not maintainable. Only on this ground the impugned order dated 05th June 2008 will have to be quashed and set aside. 6. At this stage the learned counsel for 2nd and 3rd respondents submits that time of two weeks be granted to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to file appropriate proceedings for challenging the orders which were impugned by the said respondents by filing revision application. The said prayer will have to be granted. 7. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) The impugned order dated 05th June 2008 is quashed and set aside and revision application filed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents is dismissed only on the ground that the same was not maintainable. (ii) Notwithstanding this order, it will be open for the 2nd and 3rd respondents to file : 5 : appropriate proceedings for challenging orders dated 10th April 2008 and 29th April 2008 passed by the trial Court. (iii) As the advocate for 2nd and 3rd respondents has stated that necessary proceedings will be filed in that behalf within a period of two weeks from today, the learned trial Judge will not proceed with the trial for a period of four weeks from today. (iv) All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. (v) Application is partly allowed in above terms with no orders as to costs. (A.S.Oka,J)