- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2201 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.2201 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.2201 OF 2005 Tejinder Singh Sablok ...Petitioner vs. Fortis Securities Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.P.G.Karande for the Petitioner Ms M.H.Mhatre,A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : OCTOBER 4,2005 : OCTOBER 4,2005 : OCTOBER 4,2005 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1. On a private complaint filed by the Respondent No.1 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Petitioner has been convicted. The learned Trial Judge directed the Petitioner to suffer sentence till the rising of the Court and also directed the Petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The said impugned Judgment and order has been confirmed in a Revision by the Sessions Court. 2. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent No.1 has not established the liability of the Petitioner to pay the amount. He invited my attention to the notes of evidence. He, therefore, submitted that no offence under Section 138 of the said Act of 1881 is made out. 3. I have considered the submissions. The Petitioner did not reply to the notice issued by the Respondent No.1 under Section 138 of the said Act of 1881. The Petitioner has not discharged the burden under Section 139 of the said Act of 1881. 4. No case is made out for interference. Petition is rejected. - 2 - JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE