( 1 ) THE question which arises for determination in this case is whether the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction is competent to interfere with an order passed by a Judge of the High Court in the exercise or its original criminal jurisdiction. If it is, a further question arises whether in the facts of this case, the order of the learned Judge discharging the accused from his bail bond should be set aside.

( 2 ) THE accused Haridas Mundhra was the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Richardson and Cruddas Ltd. , and the managing director of its Managing Agents S. B. Industrial (Private) Ltd. He was being tried in the High Court Sessions on three counts of offences, under Section 418, Section 465 read with Section 471, and Section 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that as a director of Richardson and Cruddas Ltd. and as the managing director of Section B. Industrial Development Company (Private) Ltd. , he cheated Richardson and Cruddas Ltd. , in the sum of Rupees 10,60,900/- by dishonestly using two forged bills of Indian Machine Tools Company Ltd. , a fictitious company, as genuine and by abetting the making of false entries in certain bo