IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Y CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.318 OF 2008 Shri.Nitesh Jayantilal Jain .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.M.K.Kocharekar for the Petitioner. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P for the State. Mr.S.V.Marwadi for respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 18th July 2008. : 18th July 2008. : 18th July 2008. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Petitioner has been arraigned as accused in a complaint filed by 2nd respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The process was issued by the learned Magistrate against the petitioner. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision application before the Sessions Court. The said revision application was partly allowed by passing the following order: "1. The order dt.03/08/2005 in C.C.No.5342/SS/2005 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Dadar, is hereby quashed. : 2 : 2. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate is hereby directed to proceed from stage of verification. 3. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to obtain the signature of the complainant on the verification and to proceed further for passing of order of issuance of process. 4. Inform to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate accordingly. 5. Application be disposed of accordingly." 2. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the direction issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in clause No.3 will be construed to mean that the learned Magistrate has to pass an order issuing process. He, therefore, submitted that such a direction could not have been issued. 3. I find no merit in the said submission. The : 3 : direction issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot construed as a direction to the learned Magistrate to issue process. After following the procedure and recording the verification of the complainant, the learned Magistrate is bound to apply his mind and to pass order in accordance with law. The impugned order cannot be construed to mean that the learned Magistrate is under an obligation to pass order issuing process. 4. Subject to what is observed above, writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)