mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.133 OF 2009 Sunil Gyanoba Annam Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Naveen Chomal for applicant. Ms.S.V.Gajare, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 28th April 2009 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. He submitted that the prosecution is relying upon secondary evidence which is not admissible in evidence. He submitted that without considering this aspect the application for discharge has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. 2. All these issues will be considered when the parties adduce evidence. It is for the concerned Court to decide whether secondary evidence should be permitted or not. Hence, no case is made out for interference. The revision application is rejected. However, all contentions raised in the revision application are kept open. (A.S.OKA, J.)