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 WRIT PETITION No. 2404 OF 2008 Mahendra Chunilal Mehta ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.2405 OF 2008 Mahendra Chunilal Mehta .. Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra at the instance of GBCB CID .. Respondent. WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.2406 OF 2008 Mahendra Chunilal Mehta & Ors ..Petitioners. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr Rishi Bhuta, Advocate for the Petitioners. Ms A.A. Mane, A.P.P. for the State-Respondent No.1. Mr Prasad Rao for original complainant. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. DATED : 26th March,2009. DATED : 26th March,2009. DATED : 26th March,2009. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. In all these three criminal writ petitions separate orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay (Revisional Court) are challenged. Initially, there was an application before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Trial Magistrate) filed by GBCB CID (original complainant) for alteration of charges in view of certain material. Earlier, in three different criminal cases, charges were framed by the Trial Magistrate against the present applicant (then accused). The applications preferred by the prosecuting agency for alteration of charges were opposed by the accused-applicant. The said opposition was turned down by the Trial Magistrate and against such orders revision applications were preferred before the Revisional Court and they were disposed of by different orders which are impugned in the respective writ petitions. 2. After hearing the rival submissions, it is found that in fact charges are not yet altered by the Trial Magistrate. By the present order it is directed that the Trial Magistrate shall hear the applicant-accused in all the matters prior to altering the charge and deal with the matters according to law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to both parties. In the opinion of this Court, this would put an end to the grievance of the applicant in all three writ petitions. 3. The Trial Magistrate shall proceed in all pending criminal matters in accordance with law in view of the above directions. 4. In view of the submission made by the learned A.P.P. that some of the witnesses are of advance age of 85 years, the trials of the matters pending before the learned Trial Magistrate are expedited and he shall dispose of all the cases on priority basis. 5. Accordingly, with the above directions all three writ petitions are disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.)