1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.594 OF 2007 Securities and Exchange Board of India Applicant versus Om Prakash Arora and others Respondents V.N.Shingnapurkar i/by H.N.Associates for applicant. Manish Bohra for respondent no.1. Miss A.J.Javeri, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18th June 2009 JUDGEMENT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first respondent and learned APP for the State. A private complaint was filed by the applicant on which process was issued against the first respondent. The first respondent filed a revision application before the Sessions Court for challenging the order of issue of process. There was a delay in filing the revision application. The delay was condoned on 21st June 2007. Thereafter by the impugned judgement and order dated 24th July 2007 the revision application was allowed and the complaint filed by the applicant was ordered to be dismissed. 2. On 21st April 2008 this Court issued notice to the first respondent. 2 On 13th April 2009 submissions of the counsel for the applicant and counsel for the first respondent were heard. The main submission was that the notice of the revision application was not served to the applicant and, therefore, the applicant was not heard. Time was granted to the counsel for the first respondent to take instructions. 3. Learned counsel for the first respondent has today stated that the notice of the application for condonation of delay was duly served to the applicant but the applicant has not chosen to appear. 4. I have perused the Roznama of the proceedings of Criminal Revision Application. The roznama dated 12th June 2007 shows that the advocate for the first respondent filed on record the notice sent to the respondent in the revision application (present applicant) by courier service. Thus, the roznama shows that before the delay was condoned, there was no regular service of notice but the service was purportedly made by courier service which is not one of the recognized methods provided in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Apart from that the roznama does not refer to any affidavit of service of notice filed by the first respondent. 5. The roznama further shows that on 21st June 2007 the application for condonation of delay was heard and the delay was condoned. The roznama shows that the notice of revision application was ordered to be issued to the respondent in the revision application (applicant in this 3 application) returnable on 19th July 2007. There is nothing in the roznama to show that the said notice was served. Though time was granted to the first respondent on 13th April 2009, till today the first respondent is unable to produce any document to show that the applicant was served with the notice of the revision application. As stated earlier, the roznama of the revision application does not show that the notice was duly served to the applicant. The applicant was absent when the revision application was heard. 6. In the circumstances the only option left is to restore the revision application filed by the first respondent by setting aside the impugned order and direct the Sessions Court to rehear the same. 7. Hence I pass following order :- a) The impugned order dated 24th July 2007 is quashed and set aside and Criminal Revision No.745 of 2007 is restored to the file of Sessions Court; b) The applicant and first respondent are directed to appear before the learned Principal Judge of the City Civil Court on 13th July 2009 at 11.00 a.m.. The learned Judge may himself take up the revision application for hearing or may assign the same to any other Judge as per administrative convenience; 4 c) It is made clear that no notice of the revision application filed by the first respondent will be served to the applicant and the applicant will have to appear on 13th July 2009 at 11.00 a.m..; d) The revision application shall be decided afresh as expeditiously as possible and in any event on or before 30th September 2009; e) All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open; f) Till disposal of the revision application, the proceedings of the complaint filed by the applicant will remain stayed; g) The revision application is disposed of accordingly. (A.S.OKA, J.)