[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. NO.3009 OF 2001 Dr.W.R.Correa ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.Vishal Maheshwari Adv. i/b M/s.Khaitan & Co. for Applicant Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : OCTOBER 8, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 8, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 8, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant-original accused and the learned A.P.P. for the State. None appears for the respondent no.2 though served. 2. The applicant is seeking quashing of complaint Nos.1521/2000, 1522/2000 and 1523/2000 which are pending before the Judicial Magistrate, F.C. (AC) Court, Pune. All the three cases are under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In all the three cases process has been issued under Section [-2-] 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the learned Magistrate committed an error in issuing process and the said process deserves to be set aside. If the process issued against the applicant is set aside, the proceedings in respect of the applicant, would come to an end. 3. For the reasons recorded in the order passed by this Court in the case of V.K.Jain Vs. P.V.Padode; V.K.Jain Vs. P.V.Padode; V.K.Jain Vs. P.V.Padode; 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court I am of the opinion that the applicant has an efficacious remedy of preferring revision against the order of Magistrate issuing process. Hence, in my view, it would be appropriate that the applicant prefers a revision before the concerned Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate issuing process. 4. Liberty is granted to the applicant to prefer the necessary revision before the concerned Sessions Court. The learned advocate for the applicant makes a statement that the necessary revision will be preferred within eight weeks from today. In view of this statement, the trial Court [-3-] shall not proceed with the trial for a period of eight weeks. The delay in filing the said revision application be condoned. 5. On the necessary revision being preferred by the applicant before the concerned Sessions Court, the concerned Sessions Court shall dispose of the matter on merits after hearing the necessary parties. 6. Rule and application are disposed of accordingly. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]