((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2698 OF 2008 Gurnamsingh J. Hora Petitioner versus Sujansingh J. Rajpal & others Respondents Sagar Kasar for petitioner. H.J.Dedhia, APP for the State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 13th April 2009 PC : 1. An adjournment is sought on behalf of the petitioner by pointing out that a counsel from Pune has been engaged. The said request has been made by one of the two advocates who have filed Vakalatnama. The adjournment cannot be granted on the ground of non availability of counsel as advocate on record for the petitioner is very much present. 2. A revision application was filed by the first and second respondents before the Sessions Court for challenging an order issuing process on a private complaint filed by the present petitioner. In the revision ((-2-)) application filed by the first and second respondents a contention was raised that the revision application against an order by which the process has been issued is not maintainable. By the impugned order dated 12th November 2008, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the revision application was maintainable. Reliance has been placed in the petition on various decisions of Kerala and other High Courts. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal and others (2004-AIR-SCW-5174). Reliance has been placed on observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph 15 of the said decision, which read thus :- "15. It is true that if a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, issues process without there being any allegation against the accused or any material implicating the accused or in contravention of provision of Sections 200 @ 202, the order of the Magistrate may be vitiated, but then the relief an aggrieved accused can obtain at that is not by invoking section 203 of the Code because the Criminal Procedure Code does not contemplate a review of an order. Hence in the absence of any review power or inherent power with the subordinate criminal Courts, the remedy lies in invoking Section 482 of Code." 3. It must be stated here that the issue ((-3-)) whether an order issuing process is revisable or not did not arise before the Apex Court in the said decision. The issue which arose for consideration before the Apex Court was whether a Magistrate has power to recall the order issuing process. The observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph 15 of the judgement were in the context of the issue which arose for consideration before the Apex Court. What is observed in paragraph 15 of the decision cannot be read as laying down a proposition of law that a revision against an order issuing process is not maintainable. The Court has not held that the revision application was not maintainable. 4. This issue specifically arose for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande and others Vs. Uttam and another {(1999)3-SCC-134}. In paragraph 6 of the said decision the Apex Court specifically held that an order of issue of process must be held to be an intermediate or quasi-final and therefore, revisional jurisdiction under section 397 of the said Code could be exercised against the said order. The pronouncement of the law by the apex Court in ((-4-)) the case of Rajendra Kumar (supra) is very clear and therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in holding that the revision application filed by the first and second respondents was maintainable. Hence, no case is made out for interference. The petition is accordingly rejected. However, all questions on merits in the pending revision application are expressly kept open. (A.S.OKA, J.)