IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. 1. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.301 OF 2004 Smt.Ganga M.Pujari, .. Petitioner Vs 1. Inspector in-charge of D.B.Marg Police Station, Mumbai .. 2. Special Executive Magistrate & Assistant Commissioner of Police,Mumbai 3. State of Maharashtra, .. Respondents WITH 2. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.302 OF 2004 Smt.Saroja Rama Shetty, .. Petitioner Vs 1. Inspector in-charge of D.B.Marg Police Station, Mumbai .. 2. Special Executive Magistrate & Assistant Commissioner of Police,Mumbai 3. State of Maharashtra, .. Respondents WITH 3. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.303 OF 2004 Smt.Jyoti Rahul Shetty, .. Petitioner Vs 1. Inspector in-charge of D.B.Marg Police Station, Mumbai .. 2. Special Executive Magistrate & Assistant Commissioner of Police,Mumbai 3. State of Maharashtra, .. Respondents WITH 4. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.304 OF 2004 Smt.Balabai Jaykar Pujari, .. Petitioner Vs 1. Inspector in-charge of D.B.Marg Police Station, Mumbai .. 2. Special Executive Magistrate & Assistant Commissioner of Police,Mumbai 3. State of Maharashtra, .. Respondents WITH 5. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.305 OF 2004 Smt.Baby Turka Bangera, .. Petitioner Vs 1. Inspector in-charge of D.B.Marg Police Station, Mumbai .. 2. Special Executive Magistrate & Assistant Commissioner of Police,Mumbai 3. State of Maharashtra, .. Respondents WITH 6. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.306 OF 2004 Smt.Lalita Tukaram Mistry, .. Petitioner Vs 1. Inspector in-charge of D.B.Marg Police Station, Mumbai .. 2. Special Executive Magistrate & Assistant Commissioner of Police,Mumbai 3. State of Maharashtra, .. Respondents WITH 7. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.307 OF 2004 Smt.Sunita Nageshwar Pujari .. Petitioner Vs 1. Inspector in-charge of D.B.Marg Police Station, Mumbai .. 2. Special Executive Magistrate & Assistant Commissioner of Police,Mumbai 3. State of Maharashtra, .. Respondents WITH 8. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.308 OF 2004 Smt.Basanti Bhimchand Das, .. Petitioner Vs 1. Inspector in-charge of D.B.Marg Police Station, Mumbai .. 2. Special Executive Magistrate & Assistant Commissioner of Police,Mumbai 3. State of Maharashtra, .. Respondents WITH 9. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.309 OF 2004 Smt.Chaya Pagal Hajara, .. Petitioner Vs 1. Inspector in-charge of D.B.Marg Police Station, Mumbai .. 2. Special Executive Magistrate & Assistant Commissioner of Police,Mumbai 3. State of Maharashtra, .. Respondents Mr. Rajiv Patil, for the petitioners. Mr A.S.Gadkari, for the respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2004. DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2004. DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2004. PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard Mr Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr Gadkari, learned APP for the respondents. 2. Rule. Mr.Gadkari, learned APP for the respondents, waives service. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 3. This group of Criminal Revision Applications is directed against a common Judgment dated 5.7.2004, rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gr.Bombay in nine criminal Appeals, and therefore, were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 4. The petitioners had challenged the order dated 29.3.2004 passed by respondent no.2 under section 110 (g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") against all the petitioners in all the Revision Applications. They carried the said order in Appeals before the Sessions Court as provided under section 373 of the Code. 5. Mr Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submitted that the order dated 29.3.2004, which was impugned in the Appeals, was a final order and not an interim order as held by the Sessions Court. According to Mr Patil, the Sessions Court proceeded on the assumption that the order dated 29.3.2004 was an interim order. In support of his contention, my attention was invited to the observations made by the Sessions Court in paragraphs 13 to 16 of the judgment and further submitted that the Sessions Court ought to have decided the appeals on merits. The direction to respondent no.2 to decide the proceedings in terms of the order impugned is, according to Mr Patil, ex-facie illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. A perusal of the impugned order and in particular the aforesaid paragraph nos 13-16 clearly indicate that the Sessions Court proceeds on the assumption that the order dated 29.3.2004 was an interim order and, therefore, gave direction to respondent no.2 to conclude the proceedings in terms of the directions incorporated in paragraph 15 of the order. . Paragraph 15 of the order reads thus : "15. As the proceedings is initiated on 8.12.2003 the proceedings should have been concluded before 8.6.2004. However, as I am dictating the judgment today,i.e. on 5.7.2004, it is apparently clear that the proceedings has not been concluded within six months. However, at the same time, it is also a fact that the proceedings could not be concluded mainly because the order passed on 29.3.2004 is challenged by preferring the present appeal. I, therefore, feel, that for the subsequent period starting from 29.3.2004 till this date need not be computed for section 116(3) of Cr.P.C. It was not fault on the part of the prosecution that they could not complete the proceedings within six months. I, therefore, feel that even though I am dismissing of these appeals and remanding the case to the trial Court to continue with the inquiry, the inquiry will have to be completed within six months excluding the time during which the appeal is pending in this Court. So far computation of period of six months the time from 8.12.2003 till 29.3.2004 is to be computed and thereafter the computation should again start from 28.7.2004 a day on which the appellants are directed to appear in the trial Court and the proceedings is to be completed within six months." 6. Mr Gadkari, learned APP, did not controvert the submissions of Mr Patil and fairly stated that the order passed by respondent no.2 dated 29.3.2004, in fact, was the final order and not interim as wrongly understood by the learned Sessions Judge. The order dated 29.3.2004 clearly shows that the petitioners were directed to execute a final bond and thereafter the appeals under section 373 of the Code were filed and, in fact, they were entertained by the Sessions Court. In view thereof, the learned counsel appearing for the parties, prayed for remand of these matters to the Sessions Court for deciding them on merits within timeframe. I find merit in the submissions of Mr Patil. The order dated 29.3.2004 clearly shows that the proceedings under section 110(g) of the Code were concluded against all the petitioners by directing them to execute final bond. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of order dated 29.3.2004, these Revisions Applications are allowed. Rule is made absolute. All the Appeals are remanded to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court shall decide all the Appeals on merits in accordance with law and dispose them of as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In the meantime, the interim order shall remain operative. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Sessions Court within two weeks from today. The petitioners, through their advocate, are also directed to produce a copy of this order before the learned Sessions Judge within two weeks from today. . An authenticated copy of this order may be made available to the parties. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)