-: 1 :- apl-818/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 818 OF 2011 Anand Oberoi and Others. ..Applicants. Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr. S. V. Marwadi i/b Mr. Rajeshwari P. Kotwal for the applicants. Mr. More, APP. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : December 15, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Marwadi, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. More, learned APP for the State. None appears for respondent no.2 despite service. 2. By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Applicants are challenging the order dated 28th July 2011 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate 28th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai in C.C. No. 6429/SS of 2010. By the said order, Non Bailable Warrant is issued against the applicants herein, who are accused in the proceeding under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 instituted by respondent no.2 – Complainant. srp -: 2 :- apl-818/11 3. The complaint came to be filed on 3rd June 2011 wherein process was issued. Accordingly, summons were issued to the accused-Applicants herein to remain present in the Court on 28/7/2011. The Applicants could not remain present, however, exemption application was filed on their behalf. It was rejected and NBW was issued on the application of respondent no.2 – Complainant. As stated above, this order is challenged before this Court. 4. Be that as it may, the Applicants challenged the order issuing process against them before the Sessions Court by filing revision. By his order dated 1st August 2011, the learned Sessions Judge has admitted the revision and called the record and proceedings from the trial Court. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge is now seized of the matter. 5. In the light of aforesaid circumstances and in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1758 of 2011 decided on 9/9/2011, in my view, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and same is accordingly quashed and set aside. Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 6. Mr. Marwadi, learned counsel for the Applicants, having taken instructions from his clients, who are present in the -: 3 :- apl-818/11 Court, states that in the event Sessions Court sends back the proceeding to the Magistrate’s Court for trial, the Applicants will remain present on the given date before the Magistrate. Statement is accepted. 7. Application stands disposed of. (RANJIT MORE, J.)