1 23-APL.1233-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1233 OF 2011 Sanjeev Singh Chadha. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and 2 others. ..Respondents. .......... Mr. Vincent X. D'silva, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs. A. A. Mane, A.P.P. for the State. .......... CORAM : A.R. JOSHI, J. DATED : 17TH DECEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions for sometime on this Criminal Application preferred for quashing the order dated 20.6.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai. 2. Exception is taken to the said order on the ground that without intimation to the present applicant, intervenor was allowed to intervene in the pending Appeal No.196/2010 preferred by the present applicant before the Sessions Court. 2 23-APL.1233-11 3. The impugned order which is at page-13 of the paper book reads thus: “APP HJ Raisinghani for the State present. Adv Mulla for intervener present. Adv Disilva for appellant present. Heard both advocates. ORDER MA is allowed. MA No.681/11 stands disposed off accordingly.” 4. It is specifically mentioned that both the Advocates were heard by the concerned Sessions Judge prior to allowing the Misc. Application No.681 of 2011 filed by the intervenor. 5. Now, learned Advocate Shri D’sliva for the applicant conceded this position, however, still submits that there is no locus for the witness who was allowed to intervene in the Appeal. 6. Considering the scope under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. this Court do not find any perversity in the said impugned order. Moreover, any objection regarding the locus can also very well be agitated before the concerned Sessions Court during the hearing of the pending Appeal and learned Sessions Judge can decide the said Appeal on its own merits according to law. 3 23-APL.1233-11 7. In the result, present application is dismissed and accordingly disposed of. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) PPD