Interim Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: C. C. No.1258/SS/2019
Exh.15
MHMM180087572019
C. C. No.1258/SS/2019
Gordan Gaspar Dsouza Vs. Tuba
Marine Services Private Ltd
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, 58TH
COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
ORDER BELOW APPLICATION EXH.15
1. This is an application to drop the proceeding accused
No.3 on the ground that the complainant has not sent notice to
accused No.3, accused No.3 was working with Tuba Marine
Services Pvt. Ltd. and no more concerned with the complainant
company ACE Media and Recruitment Services Ltd.
2. The application is objected on behalf of the
complainant vide reply Exh.16.
3. Heard both the sides.
4. The caption application is filed u/sec.258 of Cr.P.C.
Section 258 of Cr.P.C. would not be applicable nor will come to
rescue of accused No.3 to drop the proceeding on the ground
alleged by him at the stage of crossexamination of complainant
witness. Once the process is issued against the accused rightly or
wrongly, this court ceases jurisdiction to recall back the same
either by suo moto order or taking recourse of section 258 of
Cr.P.C. to drop the proceeding.
-- 1 of 3 --
2 C. C. No.1258/SS/2019
Exh.15
5. Much more is argued by Ld. Advocate for the accused
on the point of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme court in the
case of Central Bank of India Vs. Asian Global Ltd. And others
(MANU/SC/0459/2010). With due respect to the ratio laid down
by the Honble Apex Court, the same would not be useful for the
accused to drop the proceeding against him taking recourse
u/sec.258 of Cr.P.C. at a part heard stage of trial. In the matter
before Hon'ble Lordship, the orders were passed considering
inherent powers of Hon'ble High court u/sec.482 of Cr.P.C. That
can not be equated by the trial court only on the basis of judgment
cited supra and particularly when the statute do not empowers the
Magistrate to do so.
6. Further whether accused No.3 is liable or not for any
legal debt or enforceable liability is a part of evidence. That can be
adjudicated at the time of trial. The accused has ample
opportunity to establish his defence as probable and trustworthy
by way of crossexamination or bringing such circumstances on
record. The legal question that whether the accused can be held
liable or not for the transaction of other sister concerned company
can also be seen at the time of final arguments of the trial. Hence,
I pass following order.
ORDER
1. Application is rejected.
2. Matter adjourned for two months in order to give
opportunity to the accused to approach higher court to
challenge present order.
-- 2 of 3 --
3 C. C. No.1258/SS/2019
Exh.15
3. The accused No.3 and his advocate to take note that no
adjournment will be granted on next date unless matter
is stayed.
4. Order dictated and pronounced in open court.
Mumbai, (M.P.Saraf)
Dated : 31.07.2023. Metropolitan Magistrate,
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.CodeMH01362
CERTIFICATE
I affirm that the contents of this P.D.F. file Order are same, word to word as per the
original Order.
Name of Stenographer : Mrs. Aditi Ravikiran Dalvi
Court : Metropolitan Magistrate, 58th Court, Bandra,
Mumbai.
Dictated in open court on : 31.07.2023.
Transcribed and Typed on : 31.07.2023.
Order printed and Signed on : 31.07.2023.
Order Uploaded on : 31.07.2023.
-- 3 of 3 --