IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.525 OF 2007 Sunil Parashuram More ..Applicant Vs. The State of Mahatashtra and ors. ..Respondents Mr.Ganesh Gole, Advocate for Applicant. Mr.Rajesh More, APP for State. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : 2 nd May, 200 9 P.C. 1 The submissions were heard on the earlier date. This Revision Application is preferred by the petitioner who is the brother of deceased for challenging impugned order of acquittal. The Respondent Nos.2 to 6 were acquitted under impugned order for offence punishable under Sections 302, 498-A, 304-B and 306 of Indian Penal Code. The learned Counsel for Revision applicant has invited my attention to the findings recorded by the Sessions Court and submitted that the impugned judgment and order is perverse. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 to 6 has placed on record a copy of judgment and order dated 7th February, 2008 passed in Criminal Application No.4169 of 2007. The said Criminal Application No.4169 of 2007 was filed by the State seeking leave to prefer an Appeal against the same judgment and order of acquittal. By order dated 7th February, 2008 the Application for leave to prefer an appeal has been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. 2 As the Division Bench has confirmed the impugned order of acquittal, now a different view cannot be taken in a Revision Application filed at the instance of first informant. Mr.Gole, the learned Counsel for Revision Applicant pointed out that this Revision Application was filed earlier in point of time than the Application for leave to prefer Appeal filed by the State. He invited my attention to the orders dated 28th November, 2007 and 24th January, 2008 as well orders of adjournment passed by this Court in Revision Application. He submitted that when the application for leave to prefer an Appeal preferred by State was placed before the Division Bench on 7th February, 2008 the learned APP ought to have pointed out to the concerned Division Bench that the first informant had already filed this Revision Application and the same was pending in this Court. He submitted that from the order dated 7th February, 2008 it appears that most important and vital aspects of the case were not argued before the Division Bench. He urged that as the learned APP failed to point out to the Division Bench the pendency of the Revision Application, the Applicant could not make submissions before the Division Bench. 3 In view of the submissions I had called upon Mr.S.R.Borulkar, the learned Public Prosecutor to appear in this Revision Application. Learned Public Prosecutor stated that the concerned APP was not made aware of the fact that the present Revision Application was pending when the concerned APP argued the Application for leave before the Division Bench. The learned PP has placed on record an Office Memo issued by him on 22nd April, 2009 containing several directions. He stated that in view of the directions contained in the office memo now such a situation can be avoided. I have perused the Office Memo. In many cases Revision Applications against the order of acquittal are preferred by a victim of the offence or first informant only to ensure that the State takes decision to prefer an Appeal. It is always desirable that application for leave to prefer an Appeal by the State as well as Revision Application preferred by the first informant or victim should be heard together. In view of the Office Memo issued by the Public Prosecutor, the situation which has arisen in the present matter can be avoided. 4 In view of the confirmation of impugned order by the Division Bench of this Court, it will not be possible to consider submission of Mr.Gole, Counsel for applicant on merits. Therefore, remedy of the present Revision Application is elsewhere. Hence, I pass the following order: i. Revision Application is dismissed in view of the order dated 7th February, 2008 passed by the Division Bench in Criminal Application No.4169 of 2007. ii. The Statements made by the Public Prosecutor which are referred to in the order are accepted with the hope that henceforth every effort will be made to see that Revision Application against the order of acquittal preferred by victim or first informant will be heard along with Appeal against acquittal preferred by the State. [ A. S. Oka, J ] revn525-07