1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1166 OF 2008 1. Baldeo Appasaheb Patil Age : 69 years, Occu : Agriculture R/o.Vikas Chowk, Sangli 2. Prakash Subhana Kamble Age : 53 years, Occu : Agriculture ..Petitioners R/o.House No.1220, Bhoi Galli Sangli 3. Chandrakant Vasant Sane Age : 60 years, Occu : Legal practitioner R/o.Parijat Colony, Near Mangalmurty Colony, 100 ft. Road Sangli Versus 1. Jamiyatray Isardas Lalwani Age : 47 years, Occu : business R/o.Gajabhavan, Patrakarnagar behind Sangli S.T.Stand Sangli ..Respondents 2. Ajit Gajanan Vaidya Age : 40 years, Occu : Contractor R/o.Shri Dattadarshan Apartment Vikas Chowk Sangli 2 3. Dnyaneshwar Ganpatro Khade Age : 67 years, Occu : Agriculture R/o.B-66, M.I.D.C, Miraj, District : Sangli 4. Sudhakar Dnyaneshwar Khade Age : 42 years, Occu : Agriculture R/o.B-66, M.I.D.C, Miraj District : Sangli 5. The State of Maharashtra Mr.Umesh R. Mankapure, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.Machindra Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent No.1 Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P, for the State CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 JUDGMENT . The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the last date. Considering the controversy involved in this petition, same was taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. The first respondent has filed a complaint against the 3 petitioners alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. By the Judgment and Order dated 16th November, 2006, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli exercised power under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and dismissed the said complaint. A Revision Application was preferred by the first respondent to which the petitioners who were arraigned as accused were made parties. By the impugned Judgment and Order dated 27th February, 2008, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli allowed the Revision Application by setting aside the Order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and ordered that a process be issued against the petitioners. 3. The contention raised by the petitioners is that apart from the fact that there was no case made out for issuing the process, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not heard the petitioners though they were made parties to the Revision Application filed by the first respondent. It is pointed out that the notice of the Revision 4 Application was not issued to the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent opposed the submissions by contending that the petitioners do not come in the picture till such time the process was not issued. He submitted that the petitioners had no right of hearing on the question whether a case was made out for issuing a process and therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli was justified in disposing of the Revision Application without issuing notice to the petitioners. He, therefore, submits that no interference was called for. 5. I have considered the submissions. The issue involved in this petition is no longer res-integra in so far as this Court is concerned. It will be necessary to refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Shriram s/o.Nagordhar Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1311. In the said case, the second respondent before this Court had filed a private complaint against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate issued a process on the said private complaint filed under Sections 143, 147, 5 379, 323, 427, 504, 506 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and held that no case was made out for issuing a process under the rest of the Sections. The second respondent filed a Revision Application before the Sessions Court. The said Revision Application was allowed and the Sessions Court directed that the process shall be also issued for the offence punishable under Section 395 instead of Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The Order of the Sessions Court was challenged by the petitioners who were arraigned in the complaint as the accused. The question before this Court was whether the Revisional Court was under an obligation to hear the petitioners. The learned Single Judge of this Court held that as the learned Magistrate had not issued the process under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, an Order of issuing process under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code passed in Revision Application operates to the prejudice of the accused. After considering the law on the subject, this Court held that it was necessary for advancing the cause of justice and in consonance with the principles of natural justice that the petitioners/accused should have been heard by the Sessions 6 Court. 6. In view of the aforesaid decision in the case of Shriram s/o.Nagordhar Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr (Supra), it was the duty of the Sessions Court to issue notice to the petitioners before hearing the Revision Application. Only on this ground, the petitioners must succeed. 7. Hence, I pass the following order. (i) The impugned Judgment and Order dated 27th February, 2008 is quashed and set aside. (ii) Criminal Revision Application No.225 of 2006 is restored to the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli. (iii) The parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli on 18th October, 2008 for fixing the schedule of hearing of the Revision Application. (iv) It is made clear that no further notice of the Revision Application shall be issued to the petitioners and the 1st respondent. The notice of the Revision Application will be issued only to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein. (v) The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli will decide the Revision Application as expeditiously as possible and 7 preferrably on or before 19th January, 2009. (vi) All the contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. (vii) Writ Petition is partly allowed in above terms. (viii) Parties and the concerned Court to act upon an authenticated copy of this Order. (A.S.OKA, J.)