JUDGMENT - CHITRE J.G., J.:---These two applications have been disposed of by common judgment and order.

2. The petitioners are assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai in Criminal Revision Application No. 13 of 1995 by which she directed the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, Bombay to hear further the complaint which was filed by respondent No. 1 in his Court for setting aside the order which has been passed by him on 1-12-1994 by which he discharged the present petitioners.

3. The complaint was filed by respondent No. 1 alleging that the petitioners committed an offence under section 420 read with 34 of the I.P.C. Respondent No. 1 alleged that though the petitioners were bound to give him the commission in context with the articles exported for sale to customers residing in Germany, Berlin, Switzerland, he did not pay the said commission amount to the respondent No. 1 (original complainant). He further alleged that without informing the original complaint he dispatched some articles to the customers residing in the said areas who directly ordered for such commodities on account of emergencies. He submitted that the petitioners promised him to pay the amounts which were payable to him on some occasions but did not pay it and, therefore, they committed the offence of cheating. When the said complaint was presented in the trial Court, the trial Court issued the process in context with the offence punishable under the provisions of section 420 read with 34 of the I.P.C.

4. But when an application was moved before the trial Court in view of section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code for convenience), the learned Magistrate by passing an order in writing discharged the present petitioners. Respondent No. 1 filed revision application against the said order and the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai allowed that application and set aside the order which was passed by the trial Court and that is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

5. Mr. Mundargi, Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the accused is entitled to move the trial Court for discharge at any previous stage of the case and it was so done by the petitioners and the learned trial Court after passing a reasoned order discharged them. He submitted that when that was so, there was no necessity of reversing that order by revisional Court, because the material which was placed before the trial Court was justifying his order of discharge. Shri Mundargi made reference to the crime in question and submitted that there happens to be no clause which prevents or prohibits the petitioners from entertaining the orders received directly from the customers. He submitted that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to get the commission at 10% only if the order happens to be coming through him. He submitted that at no stage the petitioners denied the liability of paying the amount which was payable to respondent No. 1 during the period when the said agreement was subsisting and was in operation between them. He submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has unnecessarily interfered in the order which was passed by the trial Court in accordance with the provisions of section 245(2) of the Code and, therefore, the order which has been put to challenge needs to be set aside by allowing this application and issuing appropriate writ.

6. Shri Borkar, Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, submitted that the said agreement in question restricts the petitioners from entertaining the order from the mentioned areas because the customers from the said areas have been introduced by the respondent No. 1 and, therefore, he was entitled to get the commission from those orders. He submitted that some of the customers who were already introduced by the respondent No. 1, booked orders in emergency directly

Click Here to Read the rest of this document