:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1741 OF 2007 Ajmir @ Mehtab Nijam Mulla and ors. ..Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr. G.M. Savagave for petitioners. Mr. S.R. Shinde, APP for State. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : September 13, 2007. Date : September 13, 2007. Date : September 13, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Savagave the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners had appeared as witnesses as PW 1 Ajmir @ Mehtab Nijam Mulla, PW 2 Vikramsinha Mansingrao Mane and PW 3 Manohar Baburao Koli in R.C.C. No.15 of 2005. The learned JMFC at Kagal by her Judgment and Order dated 9/5/2007 was pleased to acquit accused nos.1 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, whereas accused no.2 was discharged. By the very same order, the learned :2: Magistrate has directed to issue show-cause notice under Section 344 of Cr.P.C. against these three petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order they had filed Criminal Revision Application No. 119 of 2007 and the same also has been dismissed on 20/8/2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - 2 at Kolhapur. 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge noted that though the revision application was filed through Advocate Mr. P.K. Chougule none remained present for the applicants when the revision was taken up for argument and so was also the case from the opponent’s side. Having entertained the revision application the learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded to decide the same on merits. On perusal of the record submitted by the trial court the learned Additional Sessions Judge noted that PW 1 was the complainant and PWs 2 and 3 were the prosecution witnesses. He further noted that the record indicated that all the three petitioners gave false and fabricated evidence with the intention that such evidence should be used against the accused and dismissed the revision application on merits. :3: 3. I have perused the Judgment and Order rendered by the learned JMFC at Kagal and in para 30 of her Judgment it was observed that the complainant was an educated person holding the degree of B. Pharm and he deliberately indulged in fabricating and bringing to the court false evidence in collusion with PWs 2 and 3. The reasoning set out by the learned JMFC makes out a prima facie case to proceed against the petitioners under Section 344 of Cr.P.C. No fault could be found with the view taken by both the courts below and in any case the majesty of law and the respect for judicial process must be utmost in the minds of everyone who comes before the court and stands in the witness box having taken an oath to speak the truth and nothing other than the truth. 4. Petition is rejected. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)