1 apl.52.11-47-51-56.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Application No. 52 of 2011 Mr. Sharad Ramchandra Mohite ....Applicant v/s. Mr. Mallappa S. Korvi & anr. ....Respondents WITH Criminal Application No. 47 of 2011 Ramtarak R. Jaiswar ....Applicant v/s. Mr. Mallappa S. Korvi & anr. ....Respondents WITH Criminal Application No. 51 of 2011 Mr. Bharat Shantaram Gaikar ....Applicant v/s. Mr. Mallappa S. Korvi & anr. ....Respondents WITH Criminal Application No. 56 of 2011 Mr. Nakul Mehta ....Applicant v/s. Mr. Mallappa S. Korvi & anr. ....Respondents Mr. Shirish Gupte, Sr. Counsel with Pramod Kathane & Yogesh Sankpal for the applicant in Cr. Appln. 51,52 and 47/2011. Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Sr. Counsel with Prakash Naik in Cr. Appln. 54/2011. Mr. Mayur Sonawane for respondent no.1 in all the matters. Mr. A.S. Shitole-APP for the State. 2 apl.52.11-47-51-56.sxw CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 18th July, 2011 PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The limited grievance of the applicants is that an order has been passed by the learned Revisional Court which prejudicially effects the rights of the present applicants. The same has been done without even issuing notice to the applicants. 3. The course adopted by the learned Revisional Court is totally in ignorance of law laid down by this Court in the case of Shriram Nagordhar Mahajan v/s. State of Maharashtra reported in 2006 Cr. L.J. 2216 and Apex Court in the case of Raghu Raj Singh Rousha vs. Shivam Sundaram Promoters Private Ltd. & anr. (2009) 2 SCC 363. 4. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law. Rule in all the petitions is, therefore, made absolute by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Revisional Court. The revisions are remanded to the learned Revisional Court for deciding them afresh in accordance with law and particularly in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid two cases. (B.R. GAVAI, J)