1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 283 OF 2009 Mr.Vispi C. Damania ...Applicant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation BS & FC Mumbai & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.S.V.Marwadi i/b. Mr. S.P.Narkar Advocate for the Applicant Mr.A.S.Gadkari with Mr. M.V. Mehta, Advocate for Respondent No.1 C.B.I Mrs. R.V. Newton, A.P.P for the State CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 5TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1.This application has challenged the order dated 21st March 2009 of the learned Special Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai dismissing the application for discharge filed by the applicant herein. 2.The main issue is whether the accused No.1 in the case, who is stated to have had no authority to sanction any credit facility, and who sanctioned credit facility in favour of the applicant herein and the applicant herein could have been prosecuted under Section 120B, 409, 477 of the I.P.C and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) 2 (b) of the P.C Act. The learned Judge has correctly held that on the materials placed before the Court there is suspicion created, for which the charge would have to be framed against the applicant. The learned Judge has not specified under which Sections the charge would have to be framed. The learned Judge would certainly consider the Sections of the I.P.C and/or any other Legislation, under which the charge will have to be framed. It is not for this Court to direct the trial Court to frame charge under any particular Section. 3.Mr.Marwadi fairly conceded that the application for discharge as a whole is not maintainable. Hence, it must be taken that the impugned order cannot be stated to have been suffering from any infirmity. 4.The learned Judge shall consider under which provisions the charge would have to be framed against accused No.1 as well as the applicant. 5.Criminal Revision Application is disposed off accordingly. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)