1 (applns 5029/09 to 5032/09 and 5072/09) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5029 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5030 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5031 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5032 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5072 OF 2009 Anil Metre S/o Late W.B. Metre .... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents. Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the applicant. Mr. P.S. Hingorani – APP for the State Mr. P.D. Desai for Respondent No.2. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 9th September, 2010 2 (applns 5029/09 to 5032/09 and 5072/09) P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2. 2. Applicant has filed these applications challenging the order of issuance of process by the learned Magistrate on the complaint filed by the Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant has challenged the said order of issuance of process on number of grounds. 3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that the Trial Court did not have jurisdiction to hear and decide the criminal complaint since only notice was issued from Mumbai and rest of the cause of action had arisen outside the jurisdiction of the Court. It is then submitted that the provisions of section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code have not been complied with. It is further submitted that since the applicant was residing outside the jurisdiction of the Court, it was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to have postponed the issuance of process and held an inquiry. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 submitted that the plea of the 3 (applns 5029/09 to 5032/09 and 5072/09) accused was already recorded in 2005 and the affidavit in examination in chief was filed in 2007 and, therefore, on that ground alone, applications are liable to be dismissed. 5. It is a settled position in law that once the plea is recorded by the Trial Court, the High Court should not interfere with the order of issuance of process. In this case, admittedly, plea was recorded in 2005. Affidavit in lieu of evidence has already been filed in 2007 and the applications, thereafter, have been filed in 2009. Therefore, on this ground alone, it is not possible to entertain these applications. 6. Applications are accordingly dismissed. 7. The applicant, however, is exempted from appearing in the Trial Court. The statement of the applicant/accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C may be recorded through his advocate as per the procedure laid down under section 313(5) of Cr.P.C. If the applicant’s advocate does not cooperate with the learned Magistrate, he is at liberty to take appropriate steps for securing the presence of the applicant. 8. Applications are accordingly disposed of. 9. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the applicant 4 (applns 5029/09 to 5032/09 and 5072/09) seeks stay to this order. The request is declined since the criminal case was filed in the year 2002 and is pending for more than eight years and the applications are filed practically at the fag end of the trial. 10. All the contentions raised in these applications are kept open. (V.M. KANADE, J.)