(-1-) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5822 OF 2004 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5822 OF 2004 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5822 OF 2004 ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5823 OF 2004 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5823 OF 2004 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5823 OF 2004 ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5824 OF 2004 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5824 OF 2004 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5824 OF 2004 M/s. Electrex (India) Ltd. & Ors ...Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents ..... Mr. P.C. Kansara i/b Kansara & Thanekar, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. S.K. Pundar i/b Miss. Anita Bafna for respondent No.2. Mr. Y.S. Shinde, A.P.P. in Application No.5822/04, Mr. M.S. Mhambray, A.P.P. in Application No.5823/04 and Mr. V.B. Konde Deshmukh, A.P.P. in ApplicationNo. 5824/04. ..... CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. DATED: 21ST JULY, 2005 DATED: 21ST JULY, 2005 DATED: 21ST JULY, 2005 P. C.:- P. C.:- P. C.:- 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicants and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicants have prayed for quashing of Complaint Nos. 1164/S/2004, 1165/S/2004 and 1166/S/2004 which are pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Bhoiwada, Mumbai. In the said case, process has been (-2-) issued against the applicants under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the learned Magistrate committed an error in issuing process and the said process deserves to be set aside. If the process issued against the applicants is set aside, the proceedings in respect of the applicants would come to an end. 3. For the reasons recorded in my order dated 13th June, 2005 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.213 of 2005 and order dated 21st June, 2005 passed in Criminal Application No.550 of 2005, the applicants have an efficacious remedy of preferring revision against the order of Magistrate issuing process. Hence, in my opinion, it would be appropriate that the applicants prefer revision before the concerned Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate issuing process. 4. Liberty is granted to the applicants to prefer revision before the concerned Sessions Court. The learned advocate for the applicants states that the necessary revision would be preferred within a period of four weeks from today. In view of this statement, the trial Court shall not proceed with the trial for a period of four weeks from today. The learned advocate for the respondent i.e. original (-3-) complainant fairly states that no objection would be raised in respect of delay in filing revision before the learned Sessions Judge. 5. On the necessary revision being preferred by the applicants before the concerned Sessions Court, the concerned Sessions Court shall dispose of the same on merits after hearing necessary parties. 6. Applications are disposed of. *****