1. These petitions impugn the order passed on 4.10.2006 by the additional Chief These petitions impugn the order passed on 4.10.2006 by the additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum and by the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application No.509 of 2004. After the Writ Petition No.2739 of 2006 was argued, an application was made on behalf of Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.254 of 2008 that the writ petition should be adjourned in order to permit the Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 to address the Court. The petitions involve the same issue. The parties were aware that they were being heard together and therefore, ought to have been ready to argue the matter immediately after the first petition was over. I have, therefore, refused the adjournment.

2. The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are public limited companies; Petitioner No.2, being a subsidiary of Petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.2 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the `SIL') was incorporated in 1993 whereas Petitioner No.1 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the `SGL') has been in existence for well over two decades. SGL currently holds 88.25% of the shares of SIL.

3. Respondent No.2 cla