IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 22 OF 2008 STATE THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR MAPUSA POLICE STATION ... Petitioner Versus VALLABH SAGUN BANDODKAR AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. C. A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor for the Applicant. Mr. A. V. Nigalye, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2,3 and 4. Mr. S. Naik, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 28th July, 2008 P.C.:- Heard learned Counsel on behalf of the parties. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor for the Applicant states that Respondent No.1 be dropped from this revision petition as he was not a party to the Order of the learned Sessions Judge impugned in this revision. Statement is accepted. The name of Respondent No.1 shall stand deleted. This revision is filed against Order dated 15-11-2007. It appears that upon a complaint filed by Provident Fund Inspector, a case against the accused was investigated and a charge-sheet was filed against the Respondents under Section 406 I.P.C. On summons being issued, the Respondents/Accused Nos.2 to 4 filed an application dated 18-8-2004 for recalling of process issued against them. The same came to be dismissed by Order dated 23-3-2007. The said Order was challenged by the said accused before the Court of Sessions and the revision application came to be rejected. The accused were certainly entitled to be heard before framing of charge but it appears that, that stage was not gone through although, it is submitted by Mr. A. V. Nigalye, learned Counsel on behalf of Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 that in the written arguments filed in support of the application dated 18-8-2004 a prayer was made for the discharge of the accused. If process could not be recalled, as sought on behalf of the accused by their application dated 18-8-2004, the accused were certainly entitled to be heard whether they were entitled to be discharged on the basis of a charge-sheet and other documents produced along with it. It appears that no order on this aspect of the case was passed after hearing the parties. Learned Public Prosecutor agrees that the matter could be remanded to the learned trial Court to be heard at the stage of framing of charge. Mr. Nigalye, learned Counsel has no objection. In the light of what has been stated herein above, the impugned Orders are hereby set aside and the learned J.M.F.C. is hereby directed to consider the case of the prosecution at the stage of framing of the charge against the accused after giving them an opportunity to be heard. Needless to say that if there is sufficient material, the learned J.M.F.C. will proceed to frame a charge against them and if not, discharge them. Application disposed of on the above terms. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.