1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The Revision Application is filed by the original complainant challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, on 13.8.2008 whereby he allowed the Revision Application Nos.449 of 2007, 460 of 2007 and 853 of 2007 filed by the different accused persons/respondents and whereby he set aside the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai on 18.1.2007 of issuance of process against all the accused persons for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 403 read with Sec. 120B of IPC.

3. To appreciate the controversy, it will be useful to state the facts in brief. For the sake of convenience, the revision applicant may be called as complainant and the respondents as the accused persons. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are original accused Nos. 1 and 3 respectively while accused Nos. 3 to 6 are original accused Nos. 4 to 7 respectively. The complainant is a Chairman of Vmoksha Technologies Ltd., a company incorporated in Mauritius (hereinafter referred to as "the Company"). The Company had certain subsidiaries by