JOSEPH PRABHAKAR BANGERA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Baphna for the petitioner, Mr. Satpute for the respondent No. 2 and APP for the State.

(2.) PETITIONER who is an accused No. 20 in complaint case filed by the customs under section 135 of the Customs Act has filed this petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India read with 482 of the Criminal procedure Code against the Order dated 31-7-1996 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raigad rejecting the petitioner s criminal revision application which was directed against the order of framing charge passed by the Chief Judicial magistrate, District Alibag.

(3.) MR. Satpute appearing for the respondent No. 2 raised a preliminary objection to the tenability of the petition on the ground that the Order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate directing the framing of charge was an interlocutory order against which no appeal nor revision was provided. However, the petitioner challenged the said order by filing a revision before the Sessions Judge, Alibag, and on dismissal of the said revision, the petitioner has come to this Court by filing this petition, which, in fact a second revision and even if the petition is termed as petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the same is not maintainable. Mr. Satpute also relied upon certain judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court in support of his contention. I would have accepted the preliminary objection raised by him without referring to any authority cited by him. However, there is one important aspect which negatives the contentions made by Mr. Satpute. Though this writ petition is mainly intended to challenge the order of the sessions Judge, it is intended to cover all subsequent development i. e. passing of an order by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) in cd (BOM)49/85 dated 18-4-1995 in an appeal against the order imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant-petitioner. This order of the CEGAT is dated 18-4-1995 and according to the petitioner it was this order that gave him a right to challenge the order of the Sessions Court, alibag, or file this petition under section 227 of the constitution of India. Since I find considerable force in the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, preliminary objection is required to be rejected.