IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1415 OF 2001 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1415 OF 2001 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1415 OF 2001 Jaya Hind Industries Ltd., & Ors. ..Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents ---- Mr.S.S.Hardikar for the petitioners. Mr.Anil Subramani for respondent no.2. ---- Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Date : 11.4.2008. PC 1. This is a petition seeking to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 1.3.2001 passed by the learned 4th Addl.Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Revision Application No.219 of 1999 and also to quash and set aside the order dated 22.4.1999 passed by the learned JMFC, Pimpri, Pune, below Applications Exh.73 and Exh.74 in Private Criminal Complaint No.614 of 1998. 2. In short, the facts of the case are that in a private complaint filed by the complainant process was issued against the present petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 420 & 406 of IPC and under Sections 25-U and 29 of MRTU & PULP Act. The petitioners made an application for re-calling of the process. The High Court has directed that : 2 : the application be heard and finally disposed off within three months. The matter was fixed on 22.4.1999. On this date, the Advocate for the accused was present and he filed an application for exemption. The accused remained absent. On the merits of the application, the same came to be rejected. Earlier the applicants have been released on bonds wherein they had undertaken to remain present on all dates. As the petitioners were absent on the date fixed by the Court, the Court forfeitted the cash security and issued bailable warrant. This order was confirmed in revision with the finding that there is no legal error in the order. 3. Advocate for the applicant relied upon Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. and states that the Court had the power to proceed with the matter in their absence. That is however, a matter of discretion. In the present case application for exemption was made but the Magistrate observed that no proper reasons were given as to why exemption should be granted. On this footing, Magistrate rejected the application and thereafter directed forfeiture of the security. In my view, Sessions Court was right in saying that there was no legal infirmity in the order. In this view of the matter, there is no substance in the Writ petition. Writ petition stands dismissed. : 3 : (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J)