IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.321 OF 2005 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.321 OF 2005 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.321 OF 2005 M/s. Silkon Silk Mills (Exp) Ltd. & Another ..Applicants versus M/s. KSL & Industries Ltd. & Another ..Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.322 OF 2005 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.322 OF 2005 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.322 OF 2005 M/s. Silkon Silk Mills (Exp) Pvt. Ltd. & Another ..Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra & Another ..Respondents Mr.Marwadi i.b. G.R.Sharma for the applicant Mr.Yashpal Thakur i/b. Mrs. Paras Kuhad & Associates for the respondent No.1 Mr.Saste for the State CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 28th April, 2008. DATED : 28th April, 2008. DATED : 28th April, 2008. P.C. 1. By this application challenge is put up to the impugned Order dated 29.8.2005 passed by the learned Adhoc Addl.Sessions Judge, Bombay by which he granted Revision Application No.108 of 2005 and has restored the complaint which was dismissed by the Order passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate by his Order dated 30.3.2005. -2- 2. The Order dated 30.3.2005 came to be passed upon the application for exemption filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 and from the tenor of the application it appears that the staff member i.e. Ms. Shah was attending to the said complaint. This happened on 30.3.2005. When the complaint came to be dismissed, a revision came to be filed before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Bombay on 10.5.2005 and the same came to be affirmed by one Mr.D.K.Verma being the authorised representative. After grant of revision the learned Addl. Sessions Judge directed the parties to appear before the learned Magistrate on 12.9.2005 i.e. after restoring the complaint to the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. 3. Now the question to be decided in this revision application is whether the Order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was wrong. 4. After having considered the entire record it appears that on 30.3.2005 Ms.Shah was attending the matter and that is how a specific application for exemption was made. The appearance of Ms.Shah -3- is on the basis of the application dated 9.10.2001. It is pertinent to note that in the month of March 2005 Ms Shah was attending to the complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, whereas the revision petition came to be affirmed by Mr.B.K.Verma. The objection on behalf of the accused seems to be that when in October 2001 Mr Verma has resigned from the company, how is it that in May 2005 he would be able to attend the affairs of the company for and on behalf of the company and that is how the institution of the revision application is challenged. 5. I am inclined to observe that it would not be necessary at every stage for the Court to check up as to which Officer is in service of the respondent Company and certainly it is possible that a particular officer would attend to the proceeding in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereas another officer would attend to the proceeding in the Sessions Court. 6. It is true that the perusal of the application dated 2001 goes to suggest that Mr. Verma had resigned from the company in the year -4- 2001 and that required appointing Ms.Shah as Officer of the company. One finds a resolution passed by the Board of Directors in the year 2002 enclosed to the petitions by which Mr.Verma was appointed as Officer of the Company to attend to the matter. If this is so, attendance of Mr. Verma in the Sessions Court by itself would not cause any problem and to that extent institution of revision petition filed by Mr. Verma will have to be treated as proper. 7. The entire confusion arose because the Officer who is to represent the company is shown as complainant No.2. But for this defect the things would have been proper. 8. After having considered the entire matter, I am of the view that the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge need not be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction because the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was satisfied that at the relevant time when the revision petition was filed, Mr. Verma was in the service of the company. In my view, no interference is required and the revision need not -5- be admitted. 9. Learned Advocate Mr. Yeshpal Thakur informs this Court that as of today Mr. Nigam Kumar will be appearing before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the proper step is being taken very shortly in that behalf. ORDER . Petition is dismissed. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)