1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.454 OF 2009 Uday Shetty .. Applicant Versus M/s.Prakash Corporation & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Shailesh Kantharia for applicant Mr.Amol Doijode for respondent No.2 Mrs.S.V.Gajare, APP CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 4th February 2010. P.C.: 1] The complainant approached this Court invoking its jurisdiction under section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. He is aggrieved by the order of the Revisional Court discharging the accused from the complaint/ criminal proceedings. 2] The Magistrate in this case issued process on 11th June 2004. The accused applied for discharge/ review of the order issuing process. The learned Magistrate refused to pass any order since he had no review jurisdiction but at the same time rejected the application for discharge. 3] Aggrieved by that order, the accused approached the revisional court. The revisional court held that the challenge to the order issuing process is barred by limitation and that aspect cannot be agitated in 2 revisional proceedings. However, she permitted the applicants – accused to argue insofar as their plea of discharge is concerned. However, while considering the same, the learned Judge lost sight of the fact that it is the accused who have approached the revisional court and not the complainant. The observations and findings of the learned Judge demonstrate complete non application of mind. The learned Judge ought to have considered the plea of discharge by perusing the relevant statutory provisions carving out the offences, allegations in the complaint and by applying the salutary principles, should have rendered a proper and cogent finding as to whether the applicant accused could be discharged in the facts of this case. That having admittedly not been done, there is no alternative but to set aside the impugned order. It is accordingly set aside. Revision application is restored to file of the sessions court for being dealt with afresh on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and within a period of three months from today. All contentions of both sides are kept open and no opinion is expressed thereon. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)