IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 68 OF 2009 MRS. MEERA D. PATIL ... Petitioner Versus M/S. ANANT V. SARMALKAR AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. P. P. Singh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram:- R. M. SAVANT, J. Date:- 3rd February, 2010 P.C. The above Petition is filed impugning the Judgment and Order dated 02.01.2008, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao. The said Order has been passed in group of 39 Revision Applications to be precise filed by the Respondents herein. The said Revision Applications arise out of the prosecution launched against the Respondents for late deposit of the PF dues by the Respondents for various periods mentioned in the Complaints. The learned Counsel for the Respondents has raised a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the above Petition on two counts, firstly, that a single Petition impugning the Order passed in various Complaints and Revision Applications are not maintainable as also the ground that a Revision under Section 397 (1) of Cr. P.C. is required to be filed. 2. Considering the objections raised and looking to the frame of the above Petition as well as Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C., in my view, the objection raised on behalf of the Respondents would have to be sustained. The above Petition is, therefore, not maintainable on the aforesaid two grounds and is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. In so far as the issue of limitation which was also urged by the learned Counsel for the Respondents is concerned, it would be open for the Respondents to urge the said ground if the occasion arises in future. 3. Needless to say that the Petitioner would be entitled to file a Revision. If such a Revision is filed, the concerned Court would consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law, including the point of limitation. R. M. SAVANT, J. arp/*