1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal Revision Application No. 156/2003 ( N.L. Giramkar and ors .vs. P.G. Shastrakar and one ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders ======================================= Mr. Abhay R. Sambre, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent no.1. Mr. C. N. Adgokar, APP for Respondent no.2. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : May 4, 2009 Heard. 2. The present revision application is directed against order dated 16.7.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati setting aside order dated 14.10.1997 passed by JMFC Court No.5, Amravati in Summary Criminal Case No. 385 of 1994 upon application Exh.22 preferred by applicant recalling the order of issuing process against the applicant. 3. Needless to add that respondent no.2/original complainant in the said summary criminal case has preferred a revision to the Court of Session against the said order and thereon the said order of recalling the process issued was set side by Additional Sessions Judge by allowing the application in revision vide order dated 2 16.7.2003. 4. The glance at present application in no uncertain terms reveal of same being based upon the ratio in a decision of Apex Court in a case of K.M. Mathew .vs. State of Kerala and another reported in (1992) 1 SCC 217 making it permissible for the accused to approach the Court issuing process against him with a prayer for reviewing the matter and recalling the order of process for standing a trial passed against him. 5. The reference to decision lateron pronounced by the Apex Court in a case of Adalat Prasad .vs. Rooplal Jindal reported in 2004 (4) Mh.L.J. 275 in terms reveals of it being not open for the accused to invoke the provisions of Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and reapproach the Court issuing process against him for reviewing the same and/or recalling the same. 6. Thus having due regard to sea change occurred after pronouncement of a decision in a case of Adalat Prasad it is difficult to perceive that the application preferred by the applicant on the basis of ratio in a decision in a case of K.M. Mathew (supra) will now survive after pronouncement of a decision in a case of Adalat Parsad. 7. In the aforesaid state of affairs and particularly having due regard to the fact of the present application being filed prior to the pronouncement of decision in a case of Adalat Prasad no fault can be found out for the applicant basing his revision application on the basis of the ratio in a earlier decision 3 in a case of K.M. Mathew. Hence it appears proper to give appropriate directions for serving the ends of justice to applicant for pursuing remedy available to him before proper forum in accordance with the law rather than merely disposing the revision application on the count of the same not surviving. 8. Thus applicant is directed to pursue remedy available to him before proper forum in accordance with the law and the present application is marked disposed of in terms of the said order with no direction as to the costs having regard to the circumstances which had warranted giving such a direction. JUDGE halwai