Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2608 (BOM)

Ravindrakumar Goel v. State of Maharashtra

2013-12-17

P.D.KODE

body2013
JUDGMENT:- Heard. 2. Admit. Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, calling of the R. & P. is hereby dispensed with. 3. By the present application in revision, the original accused in R.C.C. No. 237/1996 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gondia, has assailed the order passed by the Court of Session, Gondia allowing an application in revision preferred by the respondent and setting aside dismissal of the said case ordered by the trial Court. The respondent had instituted the said case against the applicants on the accusation of having committed the offences under Sections 18 (a)(i) read with Section 16(i)(a) punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drug and Cosmetics Act. The said case was initiated way back on 20.11.1996. It appears that after institution of said case, summons for appearance was not served and as such there arose no occasion for the applicants to appear in said case. Ultimately after the passage of about 16 years vide order dated 23.02.2012 the learned C.J.M. Gondia for reasons recorded therein was pleased to dismiss the said prosecution. 4. The respondent assailed said order of dismissal by preferring an application in revision. The said revision was allowed by the Court of Session vide order dated 07.02.2013 after hearing both the sides. By the said order, the order of dismissal passed by the trial Court was quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Court of Session. The applicant has assailed said order by present application. 5. Mr. Sawal, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that none of the offences for which the said case was instituted was punishable for an imprisonment for a term more than 2 years and as such it was a summons case. It is his submission that while considering the application in revision preferred by respondent, the Court of Session treated the case being a warrant case instituted otherwise than police report and quashed and set aside the order of dismissal passed by trial Court. It is submitted that since application in revision was considered on erroneous footing, such order passed cannot be legally sustained and the same be quashed and set aside and the matter be relegated back to the Court of Session for deciding the said application in revision in accordance with the law. 6. Mr. It is submitted that since application in revision was considered on erroneous footing, such order passed cannot be legally sustained and the same be quashed and set aside and the matter be relegated back to the Court of Session for deciding the said application in revision in accordance with the law. 6. Mr. D.M. Kale, learned APP fairly submitted that the case instituted by the respondent was a summons case and as such the application in revision was not considered on proper footing. The glance at the order impugned reveals that the Session Court has considered the matter on erroneous footing of the case in question being a warrant triable case. 7. In the said premises, the order impugned cannot be legally sustained. Hence it is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is relegated back to the Court of Session for deciding application in revision in accordance with the law. 8. The parties to appear before the Court of Session on 07.01.2014. As the matter pertains to the year 1996, the Court of Session shall decide the same as early as possible and in any event on or before the end of February, 2014. Petition allowed.