1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Revision Application No.151 Of 2010 Ramesh s/o Rambhau Shinde .. Applicant. Versus Laxman s/o. Tukaram Rathod. .. Respondent. -------- Shri. B.S. Kudale, Advocate, holding for Shri. B.R. Kedar, Advocate, for applicant. -------- CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 24th JUNE 2011 PER COURT : 1) Heard learned counsel for the complainant/ applicant. Counsel for the respondent / accused called, absent. 2) The complainant has prosecuted the accused / respondent for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. With list Exhibit 22 the 2 impugned cheque bearing cheque No.72461 in original was produced, endorsement of the learned Judicial Magistrate illustrates it was on 22-2-2006. In the affidavit, in lieu of examination-in-chief, it is specific assertion and averment of the complainant / applicant that he has tendered original cheque and original unserved envelope. It is on 17-11-2005. Apparently the date of production 22-2-2006 being later in time, at stage of examination-in-chief there was no original cheque with the learned Judge. 3) However, in the cross-examination that has occurred on 22-2-2006 the learned counsel for the accused has put question which revolved to the cheque and in deed there is no dispute about issuance of cheque. Suggestion was that, by way of security the accused had issued the cheque in question and in order to ensure that accused continue to serve with the complainant, a false prosecution is initiated. In the light of this, therefore, the observation of the learned Judge in not exhibiting the cheque in evidence requires interference. Reliance placed in para 11 of the order would not be applicable to the controversy involved. 3 4) Application Exhibit 93 in STC No.524 of 2005 is allowed. Learned Judge seized with the matter shall proceed further. The Criminal Revision Application is allowed. Sd/- (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) rsl