1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2990 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2993 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2997 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2998 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2999 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3000 OF 2009 Javed Tapia ..Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. V. P. Sawant for Petitioner. Mr. D. R. More - APP for Respondent No. 1 - State. Mr. M. Goswami with Mrs. Revati Mohite Dere for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : APRIL 05, 2010. P.C. : 1. By way of present petitions, the petitioner is challenging the Orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay, dated 9th September 2009 by which the revisions filed by the present petitioner 2 against the order of issuance of process in the complaints filed by the respondent no. 2 for the offence punishable under the Companies Act came to be rejected. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had resigned way back on 28th June 1995 from the office of the Director of the Company, who is a main accused. It is submitted that intimation regarding the resignation was also given to the Registrar of Companies. It is submitted that the resignation come into effect immediately after it being tendered. 3. An interference at this stage would be warranted only when it is found that the view taken by the learned revisional court is either perverse or impossible. 4. The learned Judge while dismissing the revisions has relied on the judgment of the apex court in the case of Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. vs. Virsa Singh Sidhu & Ors. [2008] 145 Company Cases 61. Admittedly, in the present case there is no entry in Form No. 32 recording the acceptance of resignation of the present petitioner. The question as to whether the petitioner had in fact resigned, whether the resignation is accepted or not and whether an intimation is given to the Registrar of 3 Companies or not and as to whether such intimation is sufficient enough to absolve liability of the present petitioner are all questions which can be decided at the stage of trial. I am of considered view that all these questions cannot be gone into at the stage of issuance of process. 5. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitions are rejected. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)