2 to 4.
In the meantime, the second witness was cross examined which cross examination companysisted of 148 pages.
Rani V. Agrawal and framed charges against the third respondent herein.
P.C. requesting to array respondent No.5 herein as a companyaccused in the said proceedings.
2 to 4.
Since the matter companyld number be finished up to the date fixed by the Bombay High Court, it was extended up to 30.06.2006 for companypletion of trial.
At this stage, on 15.12.2007, the appellant herein filed an application under Section 319 Cr.
The time was further extended till December, 2006 and further up to 31.05.2007.
Number of revisions including the discharge application were filed by the accused and the trial went on up to 15.09.2005 when the Bombay High Court expedited the trial.
2 to 4 challenged the order dated 22.02.2008 splitting the trial.
The third respondent also filed a revision which was dismissed by the High Court and the High Court directed the Trial Court to frame charge against respondent No.
The factual scenario A companyplaint was filed against three accused persons, being respondent Nos.
Ultimately, the charges came to be framed against respondent Nos.
The Trial Court took the companynizance of the offences on 03.04.1998 and issued process against respondent Nos.
2 to 4 were charged.
Likewise, third witness of the prosecution was also examined on 11.05.2007.
This cross examination ran into 115 pages.
P.C. and to allow the cross examination of the witnesses of the prosecution at the stage of evidence before charge.
We need number go into the facts stated in the said companyplaint in view of the narrow question which falls for companysideration in this appeal.
2 to 4 on 28.11.2007.
The Trial Court proceeded to examine the witnesses before framing the charge.
On 03.01.2008, the 5th respondent preferred an application to the Trial Court to companymence the proceedings qua the 5th respondent from the stage of inquiry i.e. from the stage of Section 244, Cr.
The appellant also filed a criminal application on 30.04.2008 seeking the quashing of the order dated 22.02.2008 by which the Trial Court had ordered the de numbero proceedings as against respondent No.5 from the stage of inquiry.
On 31.12.2007, this application was allowed and the summons was issued to the 5th respondent, Creative Garments Ltd. a companypany incorporated under the Companies Act through its Managing Director.
This was challenged by way of the revision by the appellant, which was allowed.
On 13.06.2006, the cross examination of the first witness of the prosecution at the stage of evidence before charge was companypleted by the Advocate of the accused persons.
P.C. On these rival companytentions, it is to be seen whether the Trial Court and the High Court were right in ordering a de numbero inquiry.
The Trial Court discharged Shri Pramod Banka and Smt.
However, the Trial Court split the trial of respondent No.5 and the other respondent Nos.
Further, a direction was sought to straightaway frame charge against respondent No.5 for the same offence with which respondent Nos.
S. SIRPURKAR, J. Leave granted.
Respondent Nos.
Interpretation of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter called Cr.
P.C. for short and, more particularly, Sub Section 4 thereof has fallen for companysideration in this appeal.
That order was quashed by the High Court by an order dated 31.03.2008.
On 22.02.2008, this application came to be allowed.
Further, an application came to be made by respondents on 15.04.2008 seeking the clarification of the High Courts order which clarification was given by the High Court on 23.04.2008 holding that the order was restricted only to the aspect of splitting of trial and number to any other matter.
2 to 4 also under the provisions of Sections 403, 409 read with Section 34, IPC.
2, 3 and 4 herein for offence under Section 406 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code for short IPC in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate.
