IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION ( MAIN ) NO. 242 OF 2008 SMT. PLACIDA COTA ... Applicant Versus M/S. NATIONAL MARKETING COMPANY THROUGH ATTORNEY JOSEPH MONSERRATE AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Aldrin Monteiro, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P. D. Rajadhyax, Advocate for the respondent no.1. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.2. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 17th November, 2008 P.C. By this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant who is the original complainant in Criminal Case No.602/OA/N/2004/F before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao challenges the order dated 08.09.2008 by which the learned Magistrate has permitted the complaint to examine the Branch Manager of Corporation Bank, Raia Extension counter, Vidhyanagar and the Branch Manager of Corporation Bank, Utorda branch. The respondent no.1 filed the above criminal case for dishonour of cheque for an amount of Rs.6,11,000/- issued by the applicant. The respondent no.1 examined himself and the Branch Manager of State Bank of India on which the cheque was drawn. Thereafter the respondent no.1 filed an application seeking summons to the Branch Manager of Corporation Bank, Raia and Branch Manager of Corporation Bank, Utorda which has been granted by the impugned order. Aggrieved, the applicant has approached this Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Monteiro appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the cheque in question was dishonoured on account of stop payment as was disclosed by the evidence of the Branch Manager of State Bank of India and as such the examination of the two Branch Managers of Corporation Bank was absolutely not necessary and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Per contra, Mr. Rajadhyax, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 submits that after the impugned order was passed, the Branch Manager of Corporation Bank at Utorda has already been examined and as such, the impugned order has been partly acted upon. He therefore, submits that in view of the said fact, this is not a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Rajadhyax further submits that against the impugned order, the revision is maintainable and as such, the question of approaching this Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not arise. In support of this submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Amar Nath and ors. v. State of Haryana and ors. reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2185. Mr. Monteiro did not dispute that the Branch Manager of Corporation Bank, Utorda has been examined. Since one of the two witnesses permitted to be examined by the learned Magistrate has already been examined during the pendency of the present application, I do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be dismissed. It is not necessary for me to go into the other contentions. I do not find any merit in this application. At this stage, Mr. Monteiro submitted that the learned Magistrate be directed to dispose of the matter within the time frame since the complaint was filed in 2004. Since the complaint is of the year 2004, the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously and in any case on or before 30.03.2009. Subject to the above observation, the application stands dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. lh/.