IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.511 OF 2007

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.511 OF 2007

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.511 OF 2007

Balkrishna @ Krishna Narsaiyya

Baikade ..Applicant

versus

The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent

Mr.Parvez Ubare for the Applicant

Mr.Dedhia for the State

CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J.

CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J.

CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J.

DATED : 6th May, 2008.

DATED : 6th May, 2008.

DATED : 6th May, 2008.

P.C.

1. Revision is admitted.

2. Rule is issued. Learned Advocate Mr.

Dedhia waives service on behalf of the State.

3. In the peculiar facts of the case, revision

is taken up for hearing on merits.

4. The applicant is concerned in C.R.No.270 of

2004 of N.M.Joshi Marg Police Station under Sectin

304, 328, 272, 273, 120B of IPC a/w. 66(1)(b) and

Section 65(e) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. It is

seen that the present applicant had filed Misc.

Application No.302 of 2006 in Sessions Case No.478

-2-

of 2005 which arises out of C.R.No.370 of 2004 of

N.M.Joshi Marg Police Station wherein the present

applicant is shown as accused. The 3rd Adhoc Addl.

Sessions Judge at Sewree, hereinafter refrred to as

the learned Addl. Sessions Judge rejected the said

application for discharge by speaking Order dated

7th June, 2007. Perusal of the said Order goes to

show that the neither the applicant nor the

advocate for the applicant was present. This is

being stated on the basis of the use of terminology

"none for the applicant/accused". According to the

present applicant co-accused Mehfus Alam Siddiqui

was similarly placed and he had filed Criminal

Revision Application No.288 of 2007 which Revision

Application was granted by this Court by Order

dated 24.7.2007 and that the learned Addl.

Sessions Judge was directed to hear the discharge

application filed by the said Mehfus. Treating

this as something which would help the present

applicant, the present applicnt filed the

application before the learned Addl. Sessions

Judge at Exhibit 51 being Application dated 30th

July, 2007 instead of challenging the Order dated

7th June,. 2007 and prayed before the learned

Addl. Sessions Judge that his discharge

-3-

application should also be heard again. That

application at Exhibit 51 came to be filed seeking

restoration of Misc. Applicatin No.302 of 2006.

According to Learned Advocate Mr. Ubare the

learned Addl. Sessions Judge expressed vi