IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.949 OF 2007 SVC Suprechem Ltd & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Mr.Shivshankar Jatashankar Joshi & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Subhash Jha i/by Mr.R.B.Upadhyay for the petitioners. Mrs.Vasanti Joshi for the respondent No.1. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, A.P.P for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 11th September 2008. : 11th September 2008. : 11th September 2008. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. On a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent, by order dated 19th October 2006 the learned Magistrate issued process against the accused under section 409 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said order was challenged by the 1st petitioner by filing a criminal revision application under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The said revision application was rejected by order dated 13th April 2007. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has made submissions on merits. I have : 2 : perused the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge by which revision application has been rejected. I noticed that the said judgment and order is far from being satisfactory. The order issuing process was challenged on merits. The impugned judgment and order does not show that the learned Sessions Judge has made any attempt to go through material averments made in the complaint. It appears that the learned Judge has not considered the documents produced alongwith the complaint. Consideration of the complaint and the documents was necessary to ascertain whether a case was made out for proceeding against the accused by issuing process under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. In paragraph 1 of the judgment, the learned Judge has summarised the challenge in the revision application. Paragraph 2 refers to allegations made by the 1st respondent. Paragraph 4 again refers to submissions made by the advocate for the revision applicant. The learned Judge has made a specific observation that after perusing the averments in the complaint it appears that there is no bar to take cognizance under Penal law. Rest of the paragraphs of the order do not deal with the merits of the case, but they deal with availability of various remedies to the petitioner. : 3 : 3. When it was pointed out to the advocate for the 1st respondent that only on the aforesaid ground, the writ petition will have to be admitted for final hearing, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent fairly accepted that instead of keeping the petition pending in this Court, the revision application can be directed to be heard afresh. 4. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) The impugned order dated 13th April 2007 is quashed and set aside and Criminal Revision Application No.1402 of 2006 is restored to the file of the Sessions Court. (ii) The parties to the revision application are directed to appear before the learned Principal Judge of the City Civil Court on 08th October 2008 at 11.00 a.m. The learned Judge may himself hear the revision application or may assign it to any other Court as per his administrative convenience. (iii) The revision application shall be heard afresh in accordance with law. : 4 : (iv) The revision application shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and in any event on or before 24th December 2008. (v) All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. (vi) Till the disposal of the revision application, the ad-interim order passed by this Court on 03rd August 2007 will continue to operate. (vii) The writ petition is allowed in above terms. (A.S.Oka,J)