S V JEWELLS Vs. A HIMANSHU AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and the learned APP for the State.

(2.) The petitioners take exception to the order dated 12/1/2006 passed by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in Crim-nal Revision Application No. 1532 of 2005. The said Criminal Revision Application was filed by the petitioners herein, challenging the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the petitioners were directed to be added as accused in the Criminal Complaint filed by respondent no. 1, by exercising powers vested in the Magistrate under section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners invited my attention to the observations made by the learned sessions Judge in the said order in which he held that the ratio of the judgment in the case of (S. MS. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr. ) \\ reported in 2005 (2) Bom. C. R. (Cri. ) 696 was applicable only in relation to the Company and it can be extended in relation to a firm only in relation to section 141 (2) of Negotiable Instruments act and not beyond that. He submitted that the said observation made by the Sessions judge is legally incorrect. He submitted that the law laid down in the case of S. MS. Pharmaceuticals Ltd (supra] was equally applicable to the partnership firms.