1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2303 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2304 OF 2008 Mr. Dayabhai Maganbhai Patel & Ors..... Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondents Mr. Kishor Bhatia, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for respondents. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 9th January, 2009 P.C. 1. This is the common order of two Criminal Writ Petitions by which the petitioners seek to challenge the orders i) dated 6th December 2007 by which learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai issued process against the petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.5741/SS/2007 and 5742/SS/2007 and ii) dated 14th August 2008 by which the Sessions Court rejected the revision applications challenging the order of issue of process. 2. The petitioners contend that the cheque in question was issued individually by Prakashbhai Pragjibhai Patel in discharge of his individual 2 liability. According to him, the fact has been admitted in the notice issued after dishonour of cheque. 3. Mr.Bhatia, learned counsel for petitioners draws attention of the Court to paragraph 9 of the notice dated 22nd October 2007 stating that after repeated requests, the addressee of the notice i.e. Mr. Prakashbhai Pragjibhai Patel had in discharge of his legal liabilities issued a cheque in favour of the complainant. The sentence pointed out by Mr. Bhatia is required to be read in the context of the entire complaint in the notice. Firstly the notice is addressed to Prakashbhai Pragjibhai Patel, as a partner of M/s Creative Developers. The applicants are the partners of the same firm. They have also received similar notice from the complainant. The notice refers to investment by the complainant in the project proposed to be undertaken by the firm M/s Creative Developers. In these circumstances, at the prima facie stage, it cannot be said that the cheques in question were issued by Mr. Prakashbhai Pragjibhai Patel in his individual capacity. Hence, no fault can be found either with the orders of the learned Magistrate issuing process or with the orders of learned Sessions Judge rejecting revision applications challenging the order of issue of process. 3 Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed. (SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J)