- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.160 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO.160 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO.160 OF 2006 IN IN IN CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.303 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.303 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.303 OF 2006 Rajesh P. Sharma ...Applicant vs. State Bank of India and others ...Respondents Mr.A.B.Vagyani for the Applicant Ms S.V.Gajare A.P.P. for State Mr.N.R.Tiwari i/b Mr.T.B.Tiwari & Co. for Respondent No.1 CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : OCTOBER 7,2006. : OCTOBER 7,2006. : OCTOBER 7,2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. By the order which is challenged in this application, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has accepted the apology tendered by Shri S.P.Deshpande, Manager of the first Respondent. The prayer in this Application is for holding a judicial enquiry into the conduct of Shri Deshpande as well as the Advocate appearing for the first Respondent in the complaint 2. Shri S.P.Deshpande, the Manager of the first Respondent Bank has accepted the mistake on his part. The learned Trial Judge in his discretion has accepted the apology and has warned Shri Deshpande not commit such type of mistakes in future with regard to any court record. I do not find any error in the discretionary order passed by the trial court. 3. So far as the prayer for holding enquiry against the - 2 - conduct of the Respondent No.2 is concerned, I find that when the mistake has been accepted by Shri Deshpande, there is no reason to hold any enquiry against the Advocate of the first Respondent. Hence, Application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE