IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.503 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.503 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.503 OF 2008. M.G. Construction Company. ..Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Manjeet Singh, Partner of the Petitioner-Company. Mr.A.P. Mundargi with A.M.Sarogi, for the Respondent Nos.2 to 15. Mr.Y.S. Shinde, APP, for the Respondent No.1-State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 5TH AUGUST,2008. : 5TH AUGUST,2008. : 5TH AUGUST,2008. P.C. 1. I have heard Mr. Manjeet Singh, a partner of the Petitioner-Company in support of this Petition. I have also heard the learned Counsel Shri. A.P.Mundargi, appearing for the Respondent Nos.2 to 15. Shri Mundargi states that Shri Sarogi who is instructing him will file a Vakalatnama of Respondent Nos.2 to 15 within a period of two weeks from today. The statement is accepted. 2. The petitioner-Company is the Complainant in a complaint filed under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Process was issued on the complaint. There are Revision Applications pending before the Sessions Court filed by the different accused persons. The Revision - 2 - Applications have been preferred for challenging the order issuing process. 3. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 9th January 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted stay of trial pending before the learned Magistrate till 21st January 2008. 4. The partner of the Petitioner-Company appearing in person invited my attention to the order dated 9th January 2008. He pointed out that this Court had granted stay only for a limited period of four weeks from 2nd September 2005 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has proceeded on erroneous assumption that the stay granted by this Court was continued till 21st March 2007. He submitted that the stay could not have been granted by the order dated 9th January 2008 as the stay granted earlier in favour of the accused persons was vacated by the same Court. He invited my attention to paragraph no.7 of the impugned order. He pointed out that without hearing the Revision Application on merits, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has purported to record findings on merits of the case. He submitted that the learned Judge has committed gross illegality - 3 - by recording the said findings. He also invited my attention to paragraph no.9 of the impugned order in which the learned Judge has observed that the impugned order issuing process requires consideration. 5. The partner of the Petitioner-Company appearing in person pointed out that he has moved an application for transfer before the learned Sessions Judge for transfer of Revision Applications as well as a contempt petition filed by him. 6. I have considered the submissions. At the outset it must be stated that the order dated 9th January 2008 has worked itself out with the passage of time as the stay was granted by the said order only upto 21st January 2008. Hence, it is not necessary to deal with the submissions made on merits of the said order. 7. However, it will be necessary to refer to what is observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in paragraph no.7 of the impugned order. The relevant part of paragraph no.7 reads thus :- "(7) There are catina of decisions regarding - 4 - vicarious criminal liability of Directors of Company in respect of offences punishable under sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. It has to be prima facie established those Directors are responsible for day to day affairs of the Company. Complainant’s application to array 11 Directors of the Company does not say that those Directors are responsible for day to day affairs of the Company / accused no.3. In the circumstances, order issuing process against the Directors of the Company requires consideration." In paragraph no.9 of the order, the learned Judge has observed thus :- "(9) at the cost of repetition, I say that impugned order of issuing process requires consideration." 8. It is obvious that while considering the prayer for stay, the learned Additional Sessions Judge could not have recorded any finding on merits of the order issuing process and therefore, when the Revision Applications will be heard on merits, the - 5 - concerned Court will have to decide the same without being influenced by the aforesaid observations in paragraph nos.7 and 9 of the impugned order. 9. It is true that this Court had continued the interim relief only for the period of four weeks. The said interim relief granted by this Court never operated till 21st March 2007. It appears that ad-interim stay earlier granted by the Sessions Judge in favour of the accused was vacated. As stated earlier, the impugned order of stay has worked out itself in the sense that the said order was operative till 21st January 2008. There is no challenge in this Petition to any other subsequent order passed by the Sessions Court. 10. The partner of the Petitioner-Company appearing in person states that the Revision Applications and the Contempt Petition be directed to be disposed of expeditiously after the transfer application made by the Petitioner is disposed of by the leaned Sessions Judge. The said prayer can be acceded to. 11. Hence, I pass the following order :- - 6 - (1) While deciding the pending Criminal Revision Applications, the learned Sessions Judge will not be influenced by the observations/ findings recorded by the leaned Additional Sessions Judge in order dated 9th January 2008 and in particular, observations made in paragraph nos. 7 and 9 of the said order. (2) The Transfer Application filed by the Petitioner shall be disposed of expeditiously. The pending Revision Applications and the contempt petitions will be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date on which the Transfer Application filed by the Petitioner is decided by the learned Sessions Judge. (3) All contentions on merits are kept open. [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]