Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1438      OF 2013 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)NO.612 OF 2013)  

RAVINDRA @ BALA JAGARIATH PATIL  AND ORS.      APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA              RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. Delay in filing the Special Leave Petition is condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  and  order  

passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Bombay  in  Criminal  

Revision Application No.581 of 2011, dated 10.01.2012 whereby the  

High Court has dismissed the Criminal Revision Application filed by  

the appellants.

4. The offences alleged against the appellants are punishable  

under Sections 400, 336 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for  

short 'the IPC'). The learned Assistant Sessions Judge had framed  

the charges against the appellants-herein under Section 412 of the  

IPC.  

5. Aggrieved by framing of the charges under Section 412 of  

the IPC by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the appellants-

Page 2

herein had filed a Criminal Revision Application before the High  

Court.  The High Court while affirming the orders passed by the  

learned  Assistant  Sessions  Judge  had  dismissed  the  same  and  had  

levelled charge against the appellants under Section 120-B of the  

IPC. Aggrieved by the said order of the High Court, the appellants  

are before us in this appeal.   

6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the charge  

under Section 120-B was not made out against the appellants by the  

learned Assistant Sessions Judge and, therefore, the High Court was  

not justified in dismissing the Criminal Revision Application filed  

by the appellants.

7. While perusing the complaint as well as the charges framed  

by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge we have observed that at no  

point of time the appellants-herein were framed under Section 120-B  

of the IPC.  Taking that view of the matter, we are of the opinion  

that the High Court ought not to have framed the appellants-herein  

under Section 120-B of the IPC.  

8. In view of the above, while allowing this appeal, we set  

aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and affirm the  

order passed by the learned Assistant Session Judge.

Ordered accordingly.

.......................J. (H.L. DATTU)

.......................J. (M.Y. EQBAL)

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 13, 2013