1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1690 OF 2009 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1691 OF 2009 Amarnath Baijnath Gupta & anr.........Petitioner versus M/s. Mohini Aorganics Pvt.Ltd. & anr.........Respondent. Mr. S.R. Chitnis Sr. counsel with Sameer Manjaonkar l adv. for the Petitioner Mr. Anil Agarwal adv. for the Respondent no.1. Mrs S.R. Shinde APP for State CORAM: B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 24th February, 2010. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has approached this court being aggrieved by the order of issuing process dated 31-3-2009. 2. This is a second round of litigation. In an earlier round, the petitioner has approached this court with a grievance that the verification as recorded by the learned Magistrate was not in accordance with the law. The another grievance raised by the petitioner was that the averments necessary to satisfy requirement of section 141, were absent in the complaint. 2. This court in the case of Amaranth Baijnath Gupta & anr. Vs. M/s. Mohini Organics Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Reported in 2009 2 ALL MR (Cri) 184 took a view that the verification in a format was not permissible in law and on account of that the order of issuance of process was set aside and the matter was remitted back by the learned Judge. 3. After the remand, the verification of the complaint has been recorded and thereafter the process has been issued by the learned Magistrate. 4. Being aggrieved thereby the present petition has been filed. Mr. Chitnis the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that even the verification recorded afterremand was not in accordance with the law. It is further submitted that even the averments which are necessary to answer the requirement of sec. 141 are not present in the petition. 5. In so far as the first ground is concerned, the verification would reveal that the complaint was verified regarding the grievance of the complainant and after recording necessary details in the verification, the process has been issued by speaking order. 6. In so far as the second ground is concerned, the grievance regarding averments to answer the requirement of sec. 141 in the complaint being absent is concerned, inthe aforesaid judgment of this court in the case of Amarnath Baijnath Gupta vs. Mohini Organics Pvt. Ltd. this court in para 14 has found that the averments to answer the requirements of section 141 are very much available. The said order was not challenged by the petitioners and has accepted the same. In that view of the matter, the grievance on that ground made by the petitioner, cannot be 3 accepted. As such no merit is found in the petitions and hence the same are rejected. 7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioners are from Hyderabad they should be exempted from their personal appearance before the learned trial court. The petitioners are at liberty to make an application before the learned Magistrate for grant of exemption. Upon such an application being made, the learned Magistrate should consider the same sympathetically, taking into consideration that the petitioners are from Hyderabad and would consider grant of exemption from their personal attendance except as and when it is necessary for conduct of the trial. (B.R. Gavai, J.)