1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1975 OF 2009 Sunita Vyavahare. ... Applicant. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Satishkumar Chettiyar i/b. M/s. F.F. & Assoc. for the Applicant. Mr. A.s. Shitole, APP for State. Mr. M.M. Sathaye for Respondent 2. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 04th JANUARY 2010. P.C. :- Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik in Criminal Revision Application No.657 of 2008. 3. This Criminal Revision Application was filed by the present Petitioner challenging a common order for the custody of a vehicle (Qualis) seized in Cri. Case No. 194 of 2005. 4. The learned Trial Judge had before him two applications one made by the Second Respondent Faiz Mercantile Bank Ltd. on 6th October 2008 and another made by the present Petitioner on 4th October 2008. 2 5. He passed a common order rejecting both applications on 20th October 2008. 6. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the Faiz Mercantile Co- operative Bank Ltd. and another filed Criminal Revision Application No.635 of 2008. Aggrieved by the same order of the Trial Court, the present Applicant/Petitioner filed Criminal Revision Application No. 657 of 2008. 7. From the record it appears that there are two separate orders delivered in these Revision Applications by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is common ground that the Revision Applicant Faiz Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. did not implead the Petitioner as a party Respondent in Criminal Revision Application No.635 of 2008. The Criminal Revision Application No.657 of 2008 made by the present Applicant was decided by a separate order. This was obvious because Faiz Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. filed a Criminal Revision Application on 24th October 2008, whereas, the present Petitioner filed her Revision Application on 15th November 2008. Although, the date of decision of these applications is the same, the learned Judge has delivered separate orders. To my mind, when the vehicle involved is the same and when the Trial Court has passed a common order on both applications, the least that was expected of the Additional Sessions Judge was to consolidate both Revision Applications and pass a common order. In any event, by 3 passing an order in the absence of the present Applicant, in Criminal Revision Application No.635 of 2008, although being aware that she was a party before the Trial Court has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. 8. In these circumstances, a suggestion was given to both sides that interest of justice would be served if both Criminal Revision Applications bearing No.635 of 2008 and 657 of 2008 are restored to the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik for being dealt with afresh and in accordance with law. This suggestion was acceptable to both sides and accordingly, the following order :- 1. The order dated 2nd April 2009 passed by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik in Criminal Revision Application Nos.635 of 2008 and 657 of 2008 is set aside. 2. These Criminal Revision Applications are restored to the filed of the Sessions Judge, Nasik/concerned Additional Sessions Judge for being dealt with afresh on merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any orders passed earlier. 3. It is open for the Faiz Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. to implead the Petitioner Sunita Vyavahare as a Respondent to their Revision Application No. 635 of 2008. Even if that course is not adopted by the said 4 Bank, the Additional Sessions Judge/Sessions Judge concerned, shall decide these Criminal Revision Applications together and pass a common order thereon after hearing all parties thereto. 4. The aforesaid be done by the concerned Court within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. All contentions of both sides on merits and as raised in this Petition are kept open. This Court has not expressed any opinion thereon. Rule is made absolute in the aforementioned terms. All concerned to act on authenticated copy of this order. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)