Advocates:
RAJESH PRASAD SINGHRAVINDRA KESHAVRAO ADSURE

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 6

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 1350 of 2003

PETITIONER:

Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal & Ors.

RESPONDENT:

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/09/2004

BENCH:

ARIJIT PASAYAT & C.K. THAKKER

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Legality of action taken and order passed by learned Sub-

Divisional Magistrate, Sakoli (for short ’SDM’) under Section 133 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ’Code’) having

upheld by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, this appeal

has been filed. It is of relevance to note that the appellants had

filed a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia,

questioning legality of the order dated 7.2.1989 passed by the SDM. The

revisional authority held that the order passed by the SDM was not

legal. Thereafter a revision was filed by the five of the original

applicants, who had initiated action before the SDM. The High Court as

noted above, by the impugned judgment held that the order passed by the

SDM was legal and proper. The revisional court should not have

interfered with it.

Backgrounds facts as per the complaina