bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 722 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 722 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 722 OF 2008 Anish D. Shah ... Petitioner v/s The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Ashish Aversekhar for the petitioner. Smt.A.A.Mane, A.P.P. for the respondent State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 4TH APRIL, 2008 4TH APRIL, 2008 4TH APRIL, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. This petition challenges the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay on 13.11.2007 which holds that the order framing the charge is an interlocutory order and, therefore, not revisable. 2. The learned Sessions Judge has relied on the judgment in the case of V.C.Shukla v/s State, reported V.C.Shukla v/s State, reported V.C.Shukla v/s State, reported in in in 1980 Cri.L.J. 690 (S.C.). 1980 Cri.L.J. 690 (S.C.). 1980 Cri.L.J. 690 (S.C.). This judgment was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment of M/s.Mohanlal Devdanbhai Chokshi & ors. v/s M/s.Mohanlal Devdanbhai Chokshi & ors. v/s M/s.Mohanlal Devdanbhai Chokshi & ors. v/s J.S.Wagh J.S.Wagh J.S.Wagh & anr., reported in 1981 Cri.L.J. 454. & anr., reported in 1981 Cri.L.J. 454. & anr., reported in 1981 Cri.L.J. 454. The Division Bench considered both the judgments, in the case of Madhu Limaye v/s State of Maharashtra, reported Madhu Limaye v/s State of Maharashtra, reported Madhu Limaye v/s State of Maharashtra, reported 2 in in in A.I.R. 1978 SC 47 A.I.R. 1978 SC 47 A.I.R. 1978 SC 47 and the judgment of this Court in V.C.Shukla’s V.C.Shukla’s V.C.Shukla’s case, and concluded that the order framing the charge is not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the revision is maintainable. In the case of V.C.Shukla’s V.C.Shukla’s V.C.Shukla’s case, the Supreme Court has held that a revision was not maintainable only because of the provisions of Section 11 of the Special Courts Act which makes such an order interlocutory. Therefore, the order of the Additional Sessions Judge which is impugned in this petition, is set aside. 3. Criminal Revision Application No.709 of 2007 is restored to file. 4. The Sessions Court will hear and dispose of the revision application on merits in accordance with law. 5. Petition disposed of accordingly. (SMT.NISHITA (SMT.NISHITA (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) MHATRE, J.) MHATRE, J.)