Bombay High Court
KEYUR MADHUSUDAN SHAHversusNIZAR NOORALI RANGARA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
The Official Liquidator cannot be added as a party‑respondent but may be examined as a witness.
Summary
The applicants filed multiple criminal revision applications challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge that had added the Official Liquidator as a party‑respondent in appeals concerning convictions under Section 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicants argued that the Official Liquidator should not be impleaded as a party but could be examined as a witness. The respondents sought to examine the Official Liquidator to establish that the blockage of accounts was due to official reasons beyond their control. The High Court held that the Official Liquidator cannot be added as a party‑respondent and may be examined only as a witness under Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The matter was remanded to the Sessions Court to permit examination of the Official Liquidator or his representative and to decide the appeals on their merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the Official Liquidator can be impleaded as a party‑respondent in a criminal appeal.
- Whether the Official Liquidator may be examined as a witness under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 391
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138, 141
Subjects
- Criminal revision
- Official Liquidator
- Party‑respondent
- Witness examination
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- Section 138
- Section 391 CrPC
- Appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
107-REVN-552-2024 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 552 OF 2024
Keyur Madhusudan Shah
versus
Nizar Noorali Rangara And Ors
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 553 OF 2024
Keyur Madhusudan Shah
versus
Nizar Noorali Rangara and anr.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 554 OF 2024
Keyur Madhusudan Shah
versus
Nizar Noorali Rangara and anr.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 555 OF 2024
Dahyabhai Share And Stock Brokers Ltd.,
versus
Nizar Noorali Rangara and anr.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 556 OF 2024
Dahyabhai Share And Stock Brokers Ltd
versus
Nizar Noorali Rangara and anr.
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Anosh Sequeira along with Ms. Miloni Sheth and Ms. Rutika Ingle i/b.
V.R.Law, Advocates for Applicant in all matters.
Mr. Manish Bohra, Advocate for Respondents in all matters.
Ms. Kranti Hivrale, APP for Respondent-State.
Digitally
signed by
SHUBHADA
_________________________________________________________________
SHUBHADA SHANKAR
SHANKAR KADAM
KADAM Date:
2026.02.24
11:04:44
+0530
Page 1 of 4
107-REVN-552-2024 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 20th FEBRUARY, 2026.
P.C. :
1. By these revision applications, the applicants have challenged
the impugned order dated 9th May 2022 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, City Civil and Session Court, Greater Mumbai (for short
“the Appellate Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2018 thereby
allowing the appeals filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 directing, to add
Official Liquidator as party-respondent. The Appellate Court has set-aside
the judgment and order dated 6th January 2018 passed by learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, 70th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai, by which,
respondent Nos.1 and 2 were convicted for the the offences punishable
under Section 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned
Sessions Court be directed to examine the Official Liquidator or his
representative as witness before the Sessions Court without adding him as
a party-respondent.
3. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that
respondent Nos.1 and 2 want to prove their case by examining the Official
Liquidator or his representative to ascertain whether the accounts of
accused No.1-Company and respondent Nos.1 and 2 were blocked due to
Page 2 of 4
107-REVN-552-2024 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
official reason or any other reason which was beyond the control of
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
4. Both learned counsel submit that the applications be disposed
by giving direction to the Sessions Court to permit the parties to examine
the Official Liquidator or his representative as witness in support of their
contentions.
5. In view of above, I pass following order :
ORDER
(i) The applications are partly allowed.
(ii) The direction given by learned Sessions Court to implead the
Official Liquidator as party respondent is quashed and set-aside.
(iii) The Official Liquidator or his representative can be examined as
witness by either of the parties.
(iv) As this Court has come to the conclusion that the Official
Liquidator cannot be added as party, learned Sessions Judge
shall permit both the parties to lead evidence in support of their
case as directed under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. and examine
the Official Liquidator or his representative as witness.
(v) All contentions of both parties are kept open.
(vi) It is made clear that the matter is remanded back for only this
limited purpose to learned Sessions Court. The learned Sessions
Page 3 of 4
107-REVN-552-2024 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
Court shall examine the Official Liquidator or his representative
as witness and decide the appeals on its own merits.
The revision applications stand disposed of in above terms.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…