1 CRA-705-09-&-Ors.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 705 OF 2009 with CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 706 OF 2009 with CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 707 OF 2009 with CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 708 OF 2009 with CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 709 OF 2009 Oman International Bank SAOG ... Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Nitin Pradhan a/w. Rajiv Pandey, M.S.Bodhanwalla and Ms. Prachi Raj Mhatre, i/b. M/s. Bodhanwalla & Co.,Advocates, for the applicant. Mr.P.S.Hingorani, APP, for the respondent No.1 - State. Mr. A.P.Mundargi, a/w S.V.Marwadi, i/b. Vinayak V.Katti, Advocates for the respondent Nos. 4 to 6. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 24th March, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. These Applications are filed by the original complainant against the order passed by the Sessions Court setting aside issuance of process against the accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5, who are respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 before this Court. 2 CRA-705-09-&-Ors.sxw 3. After perusal of the record and the material, the learned Counsel for the complainant-applicant fairly conceded that there is no material to show that the accused No.4 - Rajesh Sheth and accused No.5 - Ashwin Sheth were responsible for the conduct of the business of the accused No.1 Company and, therefore, the impugned order to the extent of accused Nos. 4 and 5 cannot be disturbed. The learned Counsel however, pointed out the letter dated 21.6.2000, addressed by accused No.3 - Hasmukh Sheth to the complainant about the demand made by the complainant of the amount of the five cheques in all these cases and he had requested the complainant not to deposit the cheques for some more time and he had assured that they would definitely do their level best to clear the dues at the earliest. It is true that besides this letter, there is no other material to show that accused No.3 - Hasmukh Sheth was in fact responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, but at the same time, in view of the said letter, prima facie it appears that he may also be responsible for the conduct of the business. 4. In view of the above circumstances, the applications challenging the impugned order to the extent of accused Nos. 4 and 5 stand rejected. However, the impugned order to the extent of accused No.3 Hasmukh Sheth is hereby set aside. It is made clear that it shall be open for the parties to agitate the question 3 CRA-705-09-&-Ors.sxw before the trial Court as to whether accused No.3 was responsible for the conduct of the business during the relevant period or not during the trial of the proceedings. All the Revision Applications stand disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)