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. 3252 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3252 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3252 OF 2007 Riteshkumar Hasmukhhai Patel.... Applicanr versus State of Maharashtra and Ors....... Respondent. Shri H.E.Palwe for the applicant. Ms. P.P.Shinde APP for Respondent no.. Mr. Manoj Mohite for Respondent no.2. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 25TH JANUARY, 2008 DATED; 25TH JANUARY, 2008 DATED; 25TH JANUARY, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. Process came to be issued against the present applicant in a case filed under section 138 of N.I.Act. The said order was questioned by filing a revision before the Sessions Judge. The revision came to be dismissed and it is this order passed by the Sessions Judge, which is called in question by filing the present application. 2. Perusal of the complaint reveals that the present applicant is one of the partners of M/s. Shree Jalaram Tractors, a partnership firm on whose behalf cheque was issued. Perusal of the partnership deed reveals that the present applicant is a working partner, looking after the day to day administration and the business of the firm. In the complaint, categorical averments are made that accused nos. 2 to 6 (which includes the present applicant) are at all material times responsible for the conduct of the management of the accused firm. The revisional court has on the basis of the averments made in the complaint , recorded a finding that at this stage only the averments made in the complaint need to be looked into and on perusal of the complaint it is found that the trial court has not committed any error in issuing the process. 3. Perused the impugned order. The same does not call for any interference. Hence application is dismissed. ...