1 22-revm-11-25.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 11 OF 2025 Ramesh Laxman Gayakwad Versus State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Police Station Laheri, Dist. Gadchiroli Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Shri A.R.Fule, Advocate for the applicant. Shri K.R.Lule, APP for the non-applicant/State. CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATED : 29th AUGUST, 2026. Heard Shri Fule, learned counsel for the applicant. The revision is filed challenging the impugned order dated 05.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aheri in Special Case No.136 of 2023, thereby rejecting the application for discharge filed by the present applicant/accused in Crime No. 3001 of 2013 registered at Laheri Police Station, Dist. Gadchiroli for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant Shri Fule, submits that after the application was decided by the learned Additional SKNair 2026:BHC-NAG:11560 2 22-revm-11-25.odt Sessions Judge, Aheri, the Criminal case is now sent back to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aheri as the offences charged against the present applicant in the charge-sheet is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aheri. The learned counsel for the applicant tenders on record the order dated 05.08.2026 passed below Exhibit 1 transferring the case to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aheri. The said order is taken on record and marked as X for the purpose of identification. 3. Shri Lule, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submits that the matter has, in fact, been transferred to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aheri, as the offences are triable by the learned Magistrate, and accordingly prays for an appropriate order. Hence, the impugned orders are passed without any jurisdiction and the same therefore needs to be set aside. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hasham Abbas Sayyad Vs. Usman Abbas Sayyad and others reported in 2007 (2) SCC 355 has held as under : The core question is as to whether an order passed by a person lacking inherent jurisdiction would be a nullity. It will be so. The principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence or even res judicata which are SKNair 3 22-revm-11-25.odt procedural in nature would have no application in a case where an order has been passed by the tribunal/court which has no authority in that behalf. Any order passed by a court without jurisdiction would be coram non judice being a nullity, the same ordinarily should not be given effect to. [See Chief Justice of A.P. v. L.V.A. Dikshitulu and Others - AIR 1979 SC 193 & MD Army Welfare Housing Organisation v. Sumangal Services (P) Ltd. (2004) 8 SCC 619]. 5. Shri Lule, learned Additional Public Prosecutor also relied upon the case of Ajay Kumar Parmar Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2012 (12) SCC 406 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under: “…. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid judgment that when an offence is cognizable by the Sessions court, the Magistrate cannot probe into the matter and discharge the accused. It is not permissible for him to do so, even after considering the evidence on record, as he has no jurisdiction to probe or look into the matter at all. His concern should be to see what provisions of the Penal statute have been mentioned and in case an offence triable by the Sessions Court has been mentioned, he must commit the case to the Sessions Court and do nothing else.” 6. Thus, taking into consideration that the impugned order is passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aheri who had no jurisdiction to entertain and to pass an order on the discharge application, the order rejecting the discharge application is therefore a SKNair 4 22-revm-11-25.odt nullity in the eyes of law. Hence, I am inclined to pass the following order :- ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 05-12-2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aheri in Special Case No.136 of 2023, rejecting the discharge application is hereby quashed and set aside. (ii) Since the impugned order has been set aside on the ground of want of jurisdiction, liberty is granted to the applicant/accused to approach the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aheri, before whom the case is presently pending, and to file an appropriate application for discharge, if so advised. (iii) However, it is made clear that if such application is filed by the accused, the same can be decided on its own merit without getting any influenced by the observations of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aheri in the impugned order which has now been quashed and set aside. 7. With these observations the revision application stands disposed of accordingly. [MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.] SKNair Signed by: Mr. S.K. NAIR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 02/09/2026 18:18:48