Full Order Text
Order 1 · 31 Jul 2023 · CNR MHMM180087572019
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 --