1 (crim wp 1768of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1768 OF 2010 Laxmi Proplyne Ltd. & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. Global Trade Finance Ltd. and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Y.S. Kapse i/b.Mr.C.N. Kumar for Petitioners Mr.Yashpal Thakur i/b. Prasad Kuhad and Associates for Respondent No.1 Mrs. M.R. Tidake -APP for the State. ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 16TH JULY, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, Respondent No.1 and learned APP for the State. 2. By this petition, the Petitioners are challenging the order of issuance of process passed by the Learned Magistrate on a complaint filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. It is firstly submitted that there is no privity of contract between the Petitioners and the Respondents. It is submitted that the Complainant had suppressed an introductory letter dated 17 th December, 2 (crim wp 1768of 2010) 2009 from this Court which was annexed to the complaint. It is submitted in the said letter dated 17 th December, 2009 one of the terms being term No. 2, it is clearly mentioned that the invoices should be accompanied by stamped Bill of Exchange duly accepted by the debtors for making payment in favour of GTF i.e. the Complainant. It is submitted that unless this requirement is completed, there is no question of Petitioners making the payment. According to the Petitioners, finance was provided by the Respondent No.1 to Vishnu Priya Agencies who was supposed to make payment to the Respondents. However, this fact was not disclosed. 4. Be that as it may, in my view, it is not possible to go into the factual aspect of the case. Secondly, it will be necessary to go into the documents which are supplied by the Petitioner. The question of privity of contract and legally enforceable debt will have to be considered only after evidence is lead by the parties in the trial. Hence, it is not possible to interfere with the order of issuance of process The Petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 are residents of Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and Petitioners Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are the directors and not the signatories. 3 (crim wp 1768of 2010) 5. Taking into consideration these facts, the Petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 are exempted from appearing before the learned Magistrate. During the trial, the plea of the Respondents shall be recorded through their advocates in the event they give an undertaking that they will not dispute their identity Upon such an undertaking being given, the statement under 313 may be recorded through their advocate. Bailable warrant issued is canceled. 6. Writ petition is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)