mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2379 OF 2008 Jayram Hegde ... Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr ... Respondents CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2324 OF 2008 Vinod Kumar Pittie ... Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr ... Respondents CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2325 OF 2008 Vinod Kumar Pitties ... Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr ... Respondents ... Mr. M.S. Mohite i/b Mr.S.P. Narkar for the petitioner Mr.Benny Joseph i/b M/s.Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for respondent no.2 in Criminal Writ Petition no.2379 of 2008. Mr.Yashpal Thakur i/b M/s.Paras Kuhad & Associates for respondent no. 2 in Criminal Writ Petition no. 2324/08 and 2325/08. Ms.M.H. Mhatre, APP for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 12th November 2009 P.C. 1. The petitioner fairly states that the matter in controversy has been covered by three decisions of this court rendered in i) Ramilaben Trikamlal Shah Vs. Rube and Allied Products and ors, 2007(2) Mh.L.J. ii) Shivaji Sampat Jagtap Vs. Rajan Hiralal Arora & Anr. 2006 All M.R. (Cri) 2612 iii) Anuj Sharma Vs. Atul Shah & Anr., 2008(3) LJ Soft 9URC) 12 I was a party to one of the decisions vis. the decision in Anuj Sharma Vs. Atul Shah & Anr., (Supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously submitted that the view taken by this court in three decisions requires reconsideration. He also pointed out a decision of the Karnataka High Court in Ramadas Kelu Naik Vs. V.M. Muddayya & Anr, 1978 Cr.L.J. 1043 and of a Rajasthan High Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajesh Agrawal (Criminal Revision Nos.20, 22, 24, 25 of 1993) decided on 25.5.1994) which have taken a contrary view. I am however bound by the decisions taken by this court in three cases (supra). In view thereof, there is no merit in the petitions which are hereby dismissed summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)