IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.120 OF 1999 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.120 OF 1999 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.120 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant. Versus Ajay @ Nagesh Vishram Pandit & Others .. Respondents. Smt.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P. for the applicant. None for the respondents. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 16th April, 2008. DATE : 16th April, 2008. DATE : 16th April, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Smt.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P. appearing for the applicant - State. None for respondents. 2. The Criminal Case No.489/P/93 then pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 34th Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai was sought to be withdrawn by the applicant by filing an application dated 29.9.1998. That application was decided and rejected by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 34th Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai (herein referred to as "learned Trial Judge) vide order dated 8th January, 1999. 3. This order dated 8.1.1999 is challenged in this revision application. 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the applicant - State. Nobody is present on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. An attempt was made by the learned Counsel for the applicant before this Court to show that a letter dated 29.9.1998 by which, the Govt. of Maharashtra had taken a decision to withdraw certain cases and according to her, in the said letter, a reference to the present case is found. 5. It must be mentioned that, before the learned Trial Judge, no such letter was produced, as is evident from the order impugned. If this is the position, no fault can be found with the impugned order. Before the learned Trial Judge nothing was placed to satisfy him that the application filed by the learned prosecutor was at the instance of Government of Maharashtra. Learned prosecutor could not produce a letter or any document by which the learned A.P.P. was instructed to withdraw the prosecution. The learned Trial Judge will have to be treated as having come to a right conclusion in the matter. As a result of this, no fault can be found with the impugned order. 6. Learned A.P.P. submitted that she has a copy of the letter authorising the learned A.P.P. to withdraw the prosecution and that the State be permitted to make a fresh application before the learned Trial Judge to withdraw the prosecution. 7. In my view, if the learned prosecutor has necessary documents in her custody which might help her to file an application before the learned Trial Judge, it will be open for the learned A.P.P. to make an appropriate application and in that case, the learned Trial Judge shall consider the application on merits and decide the same accordingly. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, no interference is required in the impugned order. Hence, I pass the following order :- a) Revision is dismissed. It is clarified that if the learned prosecutor makes a fresh application with appropriate material, the same shall be considered and be disposed off by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 34th Court in accordance with the provisions of law. b) R & P be sent back to the 34th Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Vikhroli, Mumbai forthwith. 9. Revision application stands disposed off accordingly. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)