1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.917 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders 1. Heard Shri A.N. Irpatgire, Advocate for the petitioners. 2. Rule. Notice to Respondents after rule. A.P.P. Shri B.V.Wagh waives notice after rule for Respondent No.1. 3. By consent of learned counsel for parties, rule made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally. 4. The Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Divisional Board, Latur lodged complaint against present petitioner on 11.6.1997 with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Latur, alleging that the petitioner No.1 claimed to be 2 Head Mistress of Bharat Secondary and Higher Secondary School, Andora-Behta Taluka Ausa, District Latur run by Prerna Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Ausa, Taluka Ausa district Latur. Petitioner No. 2 is Secretary of the said institution. After filing of the complaint, offence came to be registered against both the petitioners under section 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. Investigating Officer completed the investigation and submitted charge sheet in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 1.3.1998. Thereafter in May 2008 application Exh. 43 was given by the petitioners for discharge. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur by his order dated 19.7.2008 rejected that application and thereafter on 1.8.2008 he framed the charge. 5. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order of rejection of their application for discharge, filed criminal revision application bearing No.117 of 2008. That revision 3 application came to be dismissed by Ad- hoc Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latur on 9.7.2009. 6. Advocate Shri Irpatgire took me through the reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for dismissing the revision petition. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that since the charge is already framed, the merits of the revision cannot be considered by it and, therefore, dismissed the application. It does not appear that the learned Sessions Judge has even applied his mind to the police papers before holding that the revision was not tenable. It is not said by learned Sessions Judge that the material collected by police was sufficient to prima facie disclose the offence and as such rejection of application for discharge and framing of charge was justified. 7. In my opinion, revisional court has refused to exercise its 4 jurisdiction only on the ground that the charge is already framed. It is not that revision was not filed within limitation. 8. In the circumstances, writ petition is allowed. The order passed by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latur in criminal revision application No.117 of 2008 is hereby set aside. Learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to restore the revision application to its file and call for record and proceedings and then decide the revision application on merits. The petitioners agree to to appear before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in said revision application on 4.12.2009. Till decision of revision application by Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, the trial court should stay further proceedings in the case. Writ Petition disposed of. Date:06/11/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/criwp917.09