drp {1} Cri. Application No.4975/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4975 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.55 OF 2008 Rafiq Burhan Shaikh & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. R.B.Narwade Patil, Advocate for applicants Mr. B.V.Wagh, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 22nd December 2010 PER COURT: 1. This application has been filed by the applicants, virtually seeking review of the judgment of this Court. It appears that the criminal Appeal No.55/2008 was filed by the applicants and Criminal Revision Application No.100/2010 was filed by the complainant and State had also filed Criminal Appeal No. 444/2008. All these matters were heard for final hearing and by our judgment dated 14.09.2010, Criminal Appeal No.55/2008 was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence, criminal appeal drp {2} Cri. Application No.4975/2010 No.444/2008 was dismissed confirming the acquittal of the respondents and Criminal Revision Application No.100/2010 was also dismissed by us. One advocate Mr.K.P.Chaware, had appeared in Criminal Appeal No.55/2008 and had argued the appeal extensively. This application has been filed by the applicants stating that Advocate Chaware was not holding on behalf of the counsel for the applicants, but was holding for appellant No.1 and a letter to that effect, issued by advocate Mr.Chaware, is also annexed at Exhibit-B. 2. By this application, review of the judgment is sought for. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the applicants on the judgment of the Supreme Court in “Netraj Singh V/s State of Madhya Pradesh” 2008 AIR (SC) 14. In the said judgment, the order of acquittal had been reversed by the High Court. The name of the counsel was not displayed in the cause list and, therefore, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the accused therein was prejudiced. In the present matter, the counsel had appeared and had argued the appeal. In such circumstances, any interference at this stage would amount to review of the judgment, which is impermissible in law. In that light of the matter, the application is rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/criapln4975-10