- 1 - revn.420 rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLN NO.420 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant vs Guruswarup Shantiswarup Shrivastava.. Respondent Mr.S.A.Shaikh APP for Applicant Mr.Prasad Das for Respondent CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J DATE: 3 rd October, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the Respondent. The State feels aggrieved by the discharge of the respondent-Guruswarup Shrivastava from on going prosecution as recorded by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in his order dated 17.9.2007 in Criminal case No.241/PW/2005. 2. The learned APP invited my attention to the text of the order coupled with annexed documents to the Petition to inform how the order does not address the correct position even based on - 2 - revn.420 available documents. I find substance in the said assertions of the learned APP. The other facet of the matter is that the learned Judge held that there was no wrongful gain or wrongful loss to any party including the accused. What made him to make such observations is illusion in itself. However, this is against the record. The certificate purportedly issued by the Chartered Accountant Prakash Shetty was put in acceleration presenting the same to Standard Chartered Bank for foreign remittance. From the facts it revealed that said Prakash Shetty did not issue any such certificate favouring such exemption in favour of the firm belonging to the respondent. The learned Judge finding involvement of his employees and exonerating the owner rebells the record. Statement of the female employee Smt.Shilpa illustrate that it was after deliberation of respondent with accused no.3 Laxman to the certificate of the Chartered Accountant and getting a new certification prepared on letter head of Prakash - 3 - revn.420 Shetty as it was urgently to be placed before Standard Chartered Bank. Such stand was at the leadership of the respondent and he was the only person to get benefit. Discharge by the learned Judge on imaginary grounds and that too consider the record which was not part of the proceedings calls for interference. The order is not depicting correct legal position. It is set aside. The Respondent to appear before the Court concerned on 22.11.2011. Petition allowed. K.U.Chandiwal, J