Shrikrisan Rampal Chitlange vs Dr Navalkishor Rambilas Asava And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5581 Bom

                                                           1                                   39.REVN.253-2019.odt




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

       CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (REVN) NO. 253 OF 2019
                              ( Shrikrisan Rampal Chitlange
                                            Vs.
                         Dr. Navalkishor Rambilas Asava & Ors. )

Office Notes, Office Memoranda                           Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders     or    directions and
Registrar's orders


                                  Mr. J.B. Kasat, Advocate for the Applicant.
                                  Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the Non-Applicant Nos. 1 to 3.
                                  Mr. Nitin Rao, A.P.P. for the Non-Applicant No.4/State.




                                  CORAM:        AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 20th JUNE, 2022.

Heard Mr. Kasat, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the non- applicant Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Rao, learned APP for the non-applicant No.4/State.

2. The present revision challenges the order dated 06.07.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Court, whereby the order dated 26.10.2018 passed by the learned Magistrate issuing process against the non-applicants under Sections 379, 504, 506 (2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has been quashed and set aside and the B summary filed earlier point of time by the prosecution which was rejected by the learned Magistrate by the order dated 26.03.2018 (page 24) has been accepted.

2 39.REVN.253-2019.odt

3. Mr. Kasat, learned counsel for the applicant, raises two grounds:

(i) That there is no challenge to the order dated 26.03.2018 passed by the learned Magistrate accepting summary in the revision at the behest of the non- applicants, and therefore, it was not permissible for the learned Sessions Court to have accepted the B summary without there being a challenge to the order dated 26.03.2018. He further submits, that the order dated 26.10.2018 issuing process does not mention Section 29 and 31 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act (for short "the said Act") inspite of which the impugned judgment dated 06.07.2019 quashes issuing of process under the said provision;

(ii) The second ground is that the only reasons given by the learned Sessions Court, for allowing the revision, are in four lines in the last para of the impugned judgment which are not sufficient reasons according to him in the eyes of law, and therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 3, vehemently opposes the revision and supports the impugned judgment contending that the learned Sessions Court had all the powers in law to even enter into an enquiry regarding the validity and legality of the order dated 26.03.2018 while considering a challenge to the order dated 26.10.2018.

3 39.REVN.253-2019.odt

5. I am afraid, I am not able to accept the contention of Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 3, inasmuch as, a revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is restricted to the examination of the impugned judgment on the touchstone of the parameters set therein. A revisional jurisdiction does not permit the learned Sessions Court to travel beyond a challenge raised before him. In the instant matter, a copy of revision application which is placed on record (page 29) indicates, that what has been challenged is only the order dated 26.10.2018 passed by the learned Magistrate issuing process under the aforesaid provisions (page 36) and nothing else.

6. While considering such a challenge, the learned Sessions Court, was not expected to travel beyond the challenge raised and take into consideration the order dated 26.03.2018 passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the B summary. It is therefore apparent, that the learned Sessions Court has transgressed its powers under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on account of which, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

7. There is another reason as to why the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and that is total non application of mind. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment would indicate, that in the operative part para 2 what is quashed and set aside is the order dated 26.10.2018 issuing process, also in respect of Section 29 4 39.REVN.253-2019.odt

and 31 of the said Act, whereas a perusal of the order dated 26.10.2018 would indicate, that there is no such process issued by the learned Magistrate under Section 29 and 31 of the said Act.

8. There is yet another reason why the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and that is the lack of reasons in the impugned judgment which also indicates non application of mind. The entire reasoning and consideration of the issue is limited to four lines in the last para of the impugned judgment (page 42) and nothing else. In case, the learned Court found that the stolen material was already found in the said house, it ought to have considered whether the possession of the house continued with the applicant as the said material was claimed to be have been stolen from the said house. Non consideration of this issue and on account of what has been said earlier, vitiates the impugned judgment, in view of which, the same cannot be sustained. The impugned judgment dated 06.07.2019, is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Sessions Court for decision afresh after applying its mind by reasoned order.

9. The application is allowed in the above terms.

Signed By:SHRIKANT JUDGE DAMODHAR BHIMTE SD. Bhimte Signing Date:21.06.2022 18:56