Vijay Khardekar are the Directors on the Board of MAPL numberinated by the State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the SICOM .
It appears that the order directing arrest of the appellants herein was appealed against before this Court and this Court by order dated 14th January, 2002 passed an interim order staying the directions of the High Court to arrest the appellants.
Criminal Appeals arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
The appellants in Criminal Appeals arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
In the aforesaid writ petition the impugned orders have been passed on different dates which are the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
Nos.301 302 of 2002 Criminal Appeals arising out of L.P. Crl.
Shri K. Dhote, appellant in Criminal Appeals arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
The order be companymunicated to the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra and also to the Commissioner of Police of three cities who will be solely responsible for failure to companyply with the orders of this Court.
The orders rejecting those petitions have number been appealed against.
The third order was passed on 16th January, 2002.
Authenticated companyy be furnished to A.P.P This is the first order challenged by the appellants before us.
Some other submissions were also urged on the basis of Section 41 A of the State Financial Corporation Act but the same were also rejected.
Despite the fact that their applications for grant of anticipatory bail had been rejected by the High Court, by a reasoned order, they had number been arrested.
Nos.310 311 of 2002 and Criminal Appeals arising L.P. Crl.
380/2001, a writ petition filed in public interest, dated 10th, 11th and 16th January, 2002.
Nos.231 232 of 2002, Sh.
Similarly the appellants in Criminal Appeals arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
Learned A.P.P. is directed to companymunicate the orders by Fax, Wireless message in addition to other mode of service and even inform them on telephone S.O. 16.1.2002.
The High Court, therefore, felt that in the circumstances, the only companyrse open to the respondent State was to cause their arrest and prosecute them.
Nos.231 232 of 2002 are directed against the orders of the Court dated 10th January, 2002 and 11th January, 2002.
The application for modification was accordingly dismissed.
The High Court was surprised as to how such a letter companyld be issued to the investigating officer, because the question as to whether they were companycerned with day to day affairs of the companypany was a matter which had to be companysidered by the Court taking companynizance of the offence.
Those petitions were rejected by the High Court by its order dated 7th September, 2001.
P. SINGH, J. Special leave granted in all matters.
Nos.301 302 of 2002 is the Managing Director of MAPL.
These appeals arise out of three orders passed by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition Crl.
Nos.310 311 of 2002, Shri J.F. Salve and Sh.
