- 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.2555 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2555 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2555 OF 2008 Narendra Shah ...Petitioner vs. M/s.Brito Plast and another ...Respondents Mr.Paras N. Vira for the petitioner Ms S.V.Gajare A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : APRIL 8,2009 : APRIL 8,2009 : APRIL 8,2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocate for the petitioner. The challenge in this petition is to the order of issue of process passed by the learned Magistrate on a complaint filed by the first respondent against the petitioner alleging commission of an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881. Against order issuing process the revision application preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. 2. The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not the proprietor of the Narendra Sales (India). The second contention is that the learned Judge has not verified whether the demand notice was served. He submitted that in view of decision of the Apex Court in case of Rahul Builders vs. M/s.Arihant Fertilizers & Chemical and Anr. [2007 All M.R. (Cri.) 3564 SC], the process could not have been issued. The third submission is - 2 - that the complaint ought to have been filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate having jurisdiction over Vikhroli area in the city of Bombay but the complaint has been filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, Mumbai. 3. I have considered the submissions. As far as the first submission is concerned, the Sessions Court while rejecting the revision application filed by the petitioner has recorded that the petitioner is admittedly the proprietor of proprietary firm known as N.S.Sales(India). In view of the said categorical statement made in paragraph 9 of the Judgment of the Sessions Court, the first submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has no merit. As far as service of notice is concerned, there are averments made in the paragraph 6 of the complaint that notice was dispatched by the first respondent-complainant to the petitioner by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due and Under Certificate of Posting. Along with the complaint, the evidence of dispatch in the form of registration receipt issued by the postal authority has been produced. In view of presumption under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, at the stage of issuing process the learned Magistrate could not have gone into the question whether presumption has been rebutted. Thus, the issue will have to be decided after the parties adduced evidence. - 3 - 4. As far as the third submission that the complaint should have been filed in the court of some other Metropolitan Magistrate in the same city of Mumbai, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that in view of section 16(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the jurisdiction of every court of Metropolitan Magistrate extends to the entire metropolitan city of iMumbai. 5. Hence, at this stage, no interference is called for with the order issuing process. The petition is rejected. However, it is made clear that all the contentions on merits are expressly kept open. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE