[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.355 OF 2008 M.S.Shoes East Ltd. & Anr. ..Applicants Vs. Shri.C.J.D’Silva & Ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.Pavan Sachdeva applicant no.2 in person Mr.R.F.Lambay counsel for Respondent nos.1 and 2 Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : DECEMBER 8, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 8, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 8, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the applicant no.2 Mr.Pavan Sachdeva in person, Mr.R.F.Lambay, the learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2 and the learned APP for the State. 2. Complaint came to be filed against the applicant i.e. company Case No.5/S/1998. The said case is pending before learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. By order dated 10.9.1998, process came to be issued against the applicants by learned Magistrate under Section 68 of the Companies Act. The applicants are seeking quashing of said order. [-2-] 3. It is seen that after process came to be issued, applicants preferred an application for discharge under Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. By order dated 5.5.2007, said application came to be rejected by the learned Magistrate. Being aggrieved by order dated 5.5.2007 passed by the learned Magistrate, the applicants preferred Revision No.758 of 2007 before the Sessions Court at Greater Mumbai. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 1.12.2007 dismissed the said revision, hence, this petition. 4. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal reported in 2004 ALL M.R. (Cri.) 3131:(2004) 7 SCC 338, it is clear that the Magistrate could not have recalled his order. What is challenged before the Sessions Court is not the order of issuing process but the order of Magistrate dated 5.5.2007. It is seen that order issuing process was not challenged at any time by the applicants before the Sessions Court and the applicants have directly approached this Court. 5. For the reasons recorded in the order passed by [-3-] this Court in the case of V.K.Jain Vs. P.V.Padode; V.K.Jain Vs. P.V.Padode; V.K.Jain Vs. P.V.Padode; 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, 2005(3) Mh.L.J.778, which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court I am of the opinion that the applicants have an efficacious remedy of preferring revision against the order of Magistrate issuing process. Hence, in my view, it would be appropriate that the applicants prefer a revision before the concerned Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate issuing process. 4. Liberty is granted to the applicants to prefer the necessary revision before the concerned Sessions Court. The applicant no.2 makes a statement that the necessary revision will be preferred within four weeks from today. In view of this statement, the trial Court shall not proceed with the trial for a period of four weeks. If the revision is filed within four weeks from today, the learned Sessions Judge shall condone the delay if any in filing the revision. 5. On the necessary revision being preferred by the applicants before the concerned Sessions Court, the concerned Sessions Court shall dispose of the same on merits. [-4-] 6. Application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]