[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.927 OF 2008 Smt.Manik Moreshwar Joakar and Anr. ..Applicants Vs. Sadashiv Nagappa Kadam and Ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.Praksh Naik advocate for applicants Mr.N.G.Bane Adv. for Respondent No.1 Mr.A.S.Shitole A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : DECEMBER 2, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 2, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 2, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicants-original complainant, the learned advocate for the respondent no.1-original accused and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is the complainant in CC No.353/SS/2005 which was pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd Court, Andheri, Mumbai. The applicant had filed complaint against the Respondent nos.1 and 2 under sections 454, 455, 379 r.w. 114 of IPC. The learned Magistrate [-2-] discharged the respondents-accused in the said case. Being aggrieved thereby, the applicants preferred Revision Application No. 1124 of 2007 before the Sessions Court. By order dated 16.2.2008, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said revision application. 3. The learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that on 16.2.2008 the applicants were not heard. He has placed reliance on the title of the order. In the said revision application, it shows that the applicant and his advocates are absent, however, the learned advocate for the respondents-accused has placed reliance on paragraph 3 of the very same order which reads that " I heard the advocate for the revision petitioner and advocate for the respondents and APP for the State." In view of the conflict regarding the appearance, record and proceedings were called for. I have perused the Roznama in the said case. Roznama dated 16.10.2008 clearly shows that the applicants and their advocate are absent. Thus, it is clear that on 16.2.2008 when the revision was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, the applicants and their advocate were absent. [-3-] 4. The learned advocate for the applicants submitted that as the applicants were not heard, many material facts could not be brought to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge. The order has been passed without hearing the applicants. In my opinion, in the interest of justice, this order deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Revision Application No.1124 of 2007 is restored to file. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing both sides, shall dispose of the said revision application on merits. 5. The parties to appear before the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay on 7.1.2009. 6. Application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]