- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 135 OF 2000 The Regional Director, ) Employees State Insurance ) Corporation, Panchdeep Bhavan) Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013. ) ... Applicant vs. 1. Mr. Shyam Bhatia, ) Proprietor of M/s.Hindustan Labels Unit No.3, 2nd Floor Ghanshyam Indl. Estate, ) Andheri (West), Mumbai-58 ) 2. The state of maharashtra ... Respondents Mr. H. V. Mehta, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the applicant. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the respondent No.2. CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 14, 2008 PC 1. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent No.2 State. The counsel for the respondent No.1 is absent when called. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the facts in this case are identical with the - 2 - facts in Criminal Revision Application No. 131 of 2000. He further submits that the impugned order was the common order passed by the learned Magistrate and the said order has been set aside by the order passed today by me in Criminal Revision Application No. 131 of 2000. Hence, I pass following order. _O_R_D_E_R_ (i) Revision Application is allowed. (ii) Impugned order dated 29-9-1999 in Case No. 59 of 1994, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate 25th Court, Mumbai is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Magistrate for hearing and decision in accordance with law. (iii) Rule is made absolute to the extent, as indicated above. Sd/- [ D. G. KARNIK, J.]