IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 92 OF 2009 Ashwin Patel and others. ..Applicants. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr ..Respondents. Mr Uday P. Warunjikar, Advocate for the Applicants. Mrs Pritha M. Dave for Respondent No.2. Ms S.D. Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. DATED : 4th April,2009. DATED : 4th April,2009. DATED : 4th April,2009. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. It is the criminal application preferred by original accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 challenging the order of learned Sessions Judge, Mumbai (Revisional Court), dated 7.11.2008, by which the Criminal Revision Application No. 893 of 2008 preferred before the revisional Court was rejected. Said criminal revision before the Sessions Court was preferred as the applicant accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were aggrieved by an order dated 10.6.2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan’s 10th Court at Andheri, Mumbai in C.C. No. 711/SS/2008. 2. By the said order process was directed to be issued against the present applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (the N.I.Act for short). 3. It appears that the applicants have challenged the very order of issuance of process and it was taken to the Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision and then taken before this Court under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Heard rival submissions at length. 5. It is matter under section 138 of the N.I. Act, initially, filed against seven accused, accused no.1 being a company and accused nos. 2 to 4 being the Directors of the Company. Allegedly, there were number of cheques issued by accused no.1-company signed by accused nos. 2 and 4 for and on behalf of accused no.1 company and they were drawn on different dates. All the said cheques were ( 3 ) dishonoured and the total amount was running to the extent of Rs. 94 lakhs and some odd amount. However, the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.Act was filed only for dishonour of cheques amounting to Rs. 51,66,000/- considering time limit required for lodging such complaint. 6. On going through the contents of the complaint and the accompanying documents learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued process against all the co-accused. Main thurst of the argument on behalf of the present applicants i.e. accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is three fold. 7. Firstly, it is submitted that there was no any acknowledgment, admittedly, received by the complainant as mentioned in the complaint itself as to service of demand notice as against accused no.3 and as such on the said position itself there should not have been any cause of action and as such the process should not have been issued. ( 4 ) 8. Secondly, it is argued that there are no specific allegations against accused no.4 as he was engaged in day to day business of accused no.1 company and as such again on this count also there should not have been any issuance of process. 9. Thirdly, it is mentioned that the Revisional Court had relied on the extraneous material i.e. registration certificate of accused no.1-company and further came to the conclusion that accused Nos. 2 to 4 were the Directors and responsible for the management of accused no.1-company. It is further submitted on behalf of the applicants that such document should not have been looked into by the revisional court, as it was not available before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at the time of issuance of process. 10. It is certain that the issuance of process is an ordeal to be carried out after going through the averments in the complaint and after scrutiny of the documents annexed ( 5 ) thereto. If at all, the registration certificate of accused no.1-company is not to be seen then also whether there was case for issuance of process, is required to be seen and only because the revisional court i.e. Sessions Judge, Mumbai dealt with such aspect of contents of registration certificate, only on that count it cannot be said that earlier order of M.M.Court of issuance of process is required to be struck down. 11. Admittedly, as per the averments in the complaint, accused nos. 2 to 4 were the Directors of the company during the relevant period of issuance of impugned cheques and it is also admitted position that accused No. 2 is the signatory of the said cheques and such signatures were made for and on behalf of accused no.1 company as authorized signatory. From the plain reading of the address of accused nos. 3 and 4 mentioned in the title of the complaint, address is same. Same is the address of accused no.1 company being "H/O. Vidyanand Verma, Chowk Bazar, Bihar Sharif, ( 6 ) Nalanda, Bihar-803101". 12. Considering such factual position and considering that there was issuance of notice against accused no.1 company and acknowledgement to that effect received by the complainant and also the factual position as to issuance of notice specifically against accused no.2 and his reply to the complainant and considering that the addresses of accused nos. 3 and 4 are same as that of accused no.1 company, the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicants that there was no any notice received by accused no.3, cannot sustain. In other words, the reasoning given by the revisional court and the view taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate in issuance of process, after presuming compliance of the requisite ingredients for the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 141 of the N.I.Act, the impugned order cannot be termed as perverse and that in the opinion of this Court under the powers vested as per Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. there is nothing, much less illegal, warranting ( 7 ) to interfere with such order of issuance of process. 13. In the result, there is no substance in criminal application No. 92 of 2009 and same is dismissed and disposed of. 14. All the interim orders, if any, stand vacated. 15. Upon request made on behalf of the applicants, operation of this order is stayed for a period of four weeks from today. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.)