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.1 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2000 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant versus Smt. Devyani Dave & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Dedhia for the applicant Mr.Vinit Jain for the respondent Nos.1 to 6. alongwith alongwith alongwith CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.448 OF 2000 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.448 OF 2000 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.448 OF 2000 Prof. Kavadu T. Khandale @ Khandagale ..Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondents and Smt.Devyani Dave & Others ..Org.Accused/Respondents None for the applicant Mr. Dedhia for the state Mr.Jain for the Respondents CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 28th April, 2008. DATED : 28th April, 2008. DATED : 28th April, 2008. JUDGMENT. JUDGMENT. JUDGMENT. 1. Respondent No.7 filed a private complaint in the Court of Special Judge under SC/ST Act for Gr. Bombay, which was numbered as SC/St Special Case No.10 of 1996. So to say a private advocate -2- was attending to this case on behalf of the prosecution and that is why the respondents 1 to 6 before this Court filed Misc. Application No.299 of 1999. By that application respondent Nos.1 to 6 objected the appearance of the private advocate on behalf of respondent No.7, original complainant. That application was rejected by the learned Spl. Judge for Gr. Bombay by Order dated 20.8.1999. Against this Order the state has preferred this revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. I have heard learned Advocate Mr. Dedhia appearing on behalf of the State. In the first place it is required to be mentioned that the application was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 6 who were the accused before the learned Special Judge and their application was rejected by the Order dated 20.8.1999. If this be so, it is difficult to understand as to how the State was aggrieved by the impugned order and as to how the state could file the application challenging the said order. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Dedhia could not point out as to how the State could challenge the -3- said order. Apart from that, after having gone through the Order dated 20.8.1999, no interference is required in the revisional jurisdiction by this Court in the revision application filed by the State as State does not have locus standi to challenge the Order dated 20.8.1999. As such the revision application will have to be dismissed. 4. So far as the criminal application No.448 of 2008, the same was filed by the respondent No.7, Original complainant and it is his case that some inquiry/investigation must be made as to who was responsible for filing this revision Application No.1 of 2000 and the related aspects. Now that the revision filed by the State is dismissed, I am of the view that no further investigation, as suggested by the applicant-original complainant is required to be made and the said application is required to be dismissed. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I pass the following order. ORDER ORDER ORDER i. Criminal Revision Application No.1 of 2000 is dismissed. -4- ii. Rule in said application is discharged. iii. Criminal Application No.448 of 2000 is dismissed in view of the dismissal of the revision application. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)