1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.254 OF 2010 M/s.J.P.Electronics & Ors. : Petitioners (Orig.Accused) V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents ... Mr.Ishwar B. for the petitioners. Mr.D.R.More, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1. Mr.Rahul Arote for respondent no.2. ... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : MAY 03, 2010. P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard by consent. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 11.10.2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate’s 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai, whereby he issued process against the present petitioners. 2 3. A perusal of the record would reveal that the verification which is recorded by the learned Magistrate has been recorded in a prescribed format. The verification recorded is, therefore, not sustainable in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in the case of Amarnath Baijnath Gupta v. Mohini Organics Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2009) All M.R. (Cri.) 184, wherein it has been held that the verification cannot be recorded in a mechanical manner. 4. Secondly, it can be seen that the order issuing process has been passed in a mechanical manner without applying his mind. The learned Magistrate before issuing the process is expected to apply his mind to the facts of the case and giving reasons for issuing the process is necessary. 5. In that view of the matter, the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The matter is remitted back to the learned trial Court for considering it afresh in accordance with the observations made above. B. R. GAVAI, J.