JUDGMENT ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. 1. Rule. 2. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned APP waives service of notice on the respondents. 3. By consent, heard finally forthwith. 4. The petitioner is one of the two accused in C.C.No.884 of 2010 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Vashi, Navi Mumbai. The petitioner made an application for discharge as contemplated under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Magistrate, contending that there was absolutely no material against her, and that the accusation against her, was groundless. The learned Magistrate, on this, passed the following order: ORDER Perused application. Heard both sides. Prima facie there is sufficient material to frame charge. Hence application stand as rejected. 5. Aggrieved by the decision of the Magistrate, to the effect that there was sufficient material to frame charge, the petitioner moved the Court of Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction. The Revisional Court dismissed the revision with costs. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction. 6. I have gone through the order passed by the Revisional Court after mentioning the facts of the case, the Revisional Court observed as follows: The Trial Court has stated that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. The order of the Trial Court is just, proper and legal. If the petitioner was discharged, detail order with reasons was required. The order passed by the Trial Court is just, proper and legal. I, therefore, decide point no.1 in affirmative against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent. 7. Except this, no reasons whatsoever have been given by the Revisional Court for dismissing the revision. Why the order passed by the Trial Court was just, proper and legal, is also not mentioned. What was the material, which according to the Revisional Court, was sufficient for framing of charge against the petitioner, has not been indicated even briefly. 8. The order passed by the Revisional Court is not proper inasmuch as the Revisional Court has not applied its mind to the contentions raised by the petitioner, and the material reflected in the chargesheet. Atleast, the order passed by the Revisional Court does not indicate so. 9. 8. The order passed by the Revisional Court is not proper inasmuch as the Revisional Court has not applied its mind to the contentions raised by the petitioner, and the material reflected in the chargesheet. Atleast, the order passed by the Revisional Court does not indicate so. 9. Making an observation that the Trial Court had stated that a prima facie case was made out, and the order of the Trial Court was just, proper and legal, hardly amounts to deciding the questions raised by the petitioner in the revision application. 10. Clearly, there has been a complete lack of application of mind on the part of the Revisional Court. 11. It is apparent that the Revisional Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law. In the circumstances, the matter needs to be corrected by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 12. The order dated 16 January 2012 passed by the Sessions Court, Thane in Revision Application No.133 of 2011, is set aside. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Thane shall consider the Revision Application, afresh and decide the same on merits indicating at-least brief reasons for his coming to a particular conclusion. 13. Revision Application should be decided afresh by the Revisional Court within a period of one month from the receipt of this order by it. 14. Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent and in the aforesaid terms. 15. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 16. The Trial Court shall not proceed further with the trial, till the revision application is decided afresh by the Court of Sessions.