3-REVN-360-2025 (CR).docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLN. NO. 360 OF 2025 Ramesh Nagnath Kadam … Applicant V/s. The State Of Maharashtra … Respondent ________________________ Mr. Ritesh Thobde a/w.Darshan Singh Rajpurohit, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Mahalaxmi Ganpati, Addl. GP a/w. Mr. Avinash A. Naik, APP for the respondent-State. _________________________ CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 10, 2026 P.C.: 1. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) by the Applicant, who is an accused in R.C.C. No. 203 of 2015, which was registered with Pandharpur Taluka Police Station. At the relevant time, the Applicant was a sitting MLA. The Applicant had preferred an application seeking discharge from the offences registered against him under Sections 353, 341, 342, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The said discharge application came to be rejected. Hence, being aggrieved by the 1/5 adn 3-REVN-360-2025 (CR).docx said order, the Applicant has preferred the present Criminal Revision Application. 2. From the record, it appears that this matter was argued before the earlier Bench on 7 August 2026, when the interim relief granted earlier was vacated. 3. Mr. Tobde, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the view taken by the learned Sessions Court that the application for discharge was not maintainable under Section 250 of the B.N.S.S., as the same was not filed within 60 days, is completely erroneous. He submits that the offence in the present proceedings was committed on 6 July 2022, when the B.N.S.S. was not in force. Therefore, according to him, Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. would be applicable to the present proceedings, wherein no time limit is prescribed. Hence, according to him, the application for discharge was maintainable before the Sessions Court. 4. In paragraph 10 of the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge has not only discussed the provisions of Section 250 of the B.N.S.S., but has also observed that the learned Magistrate had committed the case on 6 July 2022 and that the applicant filed the application for discharge on 29 August 2025, i.e. after a period of 2/5 adn 3-REVN-360-2025 (CR).docx three years. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why the application for discharge was filed after a period of three years. 5. The learned APP submits that the accused waited for a period of three years and, when the matter came up for framing of charge, filed the application for discharge. She submits that such a practice should be deprecated, as it is nothing but an attempt to delay the trial. 6. In my view, the discharge application has not been rejected only on the ground of delay in filing the same. Further, paragraphs nos.11 to 16 of the impugned order deal with the merits of the discharge application, and only thereafter the discharge application been rejected. 7. There is no dispute that the present accused was an MLA at the relevant time. 8. The FIR contains specific allegations against the present accused that he abused the complainant, the revenue officers and the Talathi and assaulted the Talathi by giving a fist blow. Thereafter, he restrained the informant and the Talathi by surrounding them for about two hours. While the informant was drawing the panchnama, the accused was forcing him to draw the 3/5 adn 3-REVN-360-2025 (CR).docx panchnama as per his say. He also abused the complainant in filthy language and threatened them that he would see them. He thereby prevented the Government officials from discharging their duties. 9. The witnesses have specifically stated that the accused assaulted the Talathi (Revenue Officer) by giving a fist blow and also abused the revenue employees and prevented them from discharging their duties. 10. The witnesses have further stated that the accused restrained the Circle Officer and the Talathi and prevented them from discharging their duties for about two hours. 11. The learned Sessions Court has specifically recorded that there is sufficient material on record to frame charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 353 (punishable for two years), 341 (punishable for one month), 342 (punishable for one year), 323 (punishable for one year), 504 (punishable for two years) and 506 (punishable for two years) of the IPC. 12. Apart from the present crime, there are antecedents of the present accused. Having gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the discharge 4/5 adn 3-REVN-360-2025 (CR).docx application of the accused, who was then an MLA, was rejected, and having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in my view, there is no merit in the present Revision Application. Hence, the same needs to be rejected. 13. I find no merit in the present Revision Application. The same stands rejected. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) 5/5 adn