1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 265 OF 2007 Ravindra S/o Bajirao Patil ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- Jagannath S/o Suka Patil and another ..RESPONDENTS Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for applicant. Mr. S.P. Brahme, Advocate for the respondent no.1. Mr. S.N. Kendre, A.P.P. for the respondent no.2. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 11th October, 2010. PER COURT : 1. This criminal revision application is filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-3, Dhule in Criminal Appeal No.11/2005, arising out of the judgment and order dated 1st February, 2005 in S.T.C. No.1151/2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dondaicha, convicting the respondent no.1-accused. After the respondent no.1-accused was convicted by the learned Magistrate under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to suffer S.I. for one month and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. The Magistrate also directed that the fine amount if recovered should be paid to the applicant-complainant as compensation. The respondent no.1 filed Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2005 against the 2 judgment and order of the learned Magistrate. Admittedly, when the appeal was heard on merits, the applicant/the original complainant was not present before the Court. Admittedly he was the respondent no.1 in the appeal proceedings. The judgment passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge does not mention as to why in absence of the original complainant, he had proceeded to hear the appeal on merits. The judgment does not mention that the original complainant was served and has remained absent. In view of this, the following order would suffice the ends of justice : The Revision Application is allowed. The judgment and order dated 5th September, 2007 stands set aside. The Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2005 is remanded back to the Lower Appellate Court. The learned Sessions Judge, Dhule shall decide the same as far as possible personally. The Record and Proceedings should also be remitted back to the Lower Appellate Court. (A.V. NIRGUDE) JUDGE gas/crira265.07