((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3750 OF 2007 M/s.Elite Construction Co. Appellant versus State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents Shilpa Kapil for appellant. H.E.Palve for respondents 2 to 5. Y.S.Shinde, APP. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 04th February 2009 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5. Counsel for respondents 2 to 5 did not dispute that the facts of this application are identical with the facts of Criminal Application No.3752 of 2007 which has been finally decided by order dated 29th January 2009. He, however, submits that respondents 2 to 5 are desirous of engaging a counsel and, therefore, an adjournment may be granted. The learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5 has not disputed that there is no difference between the factual situation of this application and ((-2-)) the Criminal Application No.3752 of 2007. Therefore, it is obvious that this Court cannot take a different view in this application. Hence, adjournment cannot be granted on the ground that respondents 2 to 5 are desirous of engaging a senior counsel. 2. The learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5 relies upon a decision of Apex Court in the case of S.Rama Krishna vs. S.Rami Reddy (Dead) by his LRs and others ([2008]5-SCC-535). In the present case the position as reflected from the record is that the complaint filed by the applicant was transferred from one Court to another Court on two occasions. In the companion Criminal Application No.3752 of 2007, the record was perused and it was found that no intimation of transfer was issued to the applicant. I have perused the Roznama of the complaint subject matter of this application. The reasons recorded in the judgement and order dated 29th January 2009 will govern the present application. Hence, for the reasons recorded in the judgement and order dated 29th January 2009 passed in Criminal Application No.3752 of 2007, following order is passed :- ((-3-)) (a) Appeal is partly allowed; (b) The impugned order dated 13th April 2005 is quashed and set aside and the complaint bearing CC No.1164/S/2000 is restored to the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai; (c) The learned Magistrate will issue a fresh summons to the accused and will thereafter proceed with the case from the stage of recording of evidence; (d) A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate will ensure that whenever cases are administratively transferred from one Court to another, notice/intimation of the transfer shall be issued to the concerned parties and/or their respective advocates. (e) Record and proceedings be forthwith transmitted to the concerned Court. (A.S.OKA, J.)