1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1659 OF 2010 SUNIL RAMDAS JIVTODE VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri Bharat Vora Advocate for the applicant. Shri P. V. Bhoyar, APP for the respondent State. CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 08TH MARCH 2011. 1. Heard Learned Advocate Mr. Bharat Vora for the applicant and Shri Bhalerao Advocate for respondent no.2. 2. The applicant is facing criminal case for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The applicant has filed an application for discharge which has been rejected by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yavatmal. The said application was Exh.31. 2 4. The applicant carried the revision before the Sessions Court in which he made following prayer. “a) quash and set aside the order passed by the Learned J.M.F.C., below Exh.31 dated 21-12-2006 in Criminal Complaint No.2545/2005. b) quash and set aside the process issued against the applicant by the Ld. J.M.F.C. Below Exh.1 dated 11-8-2005 in criminal case No.2545/2005.” [Quoted from page 13 of the application paper book} 5. Learned Sessions Judge has scrutinized the case from the point of view of prayer clause (a), apparently, as none appeared for the appellant, and dismissed the revision application. 6. In the present application, it is urged that the prayer (b) was for quashing the order of issue of process on the ground that from what is disclosed in the complaint, the second notice was issued without presenting the cheque for seodnd time and after second dishonour of cheque, and therefore, it was not a fit case for issue of 3 process. 7. It is seen that the envelopes containing notice were returned undelivered. The question, as to the effect of non delivery due to non availability should be treated as service for counting 30 days, would be seen by the Trial Court. In this petition, it is not necessary to grant any indulgence. 8. Criminal application has no merit and is dismissed. 9. The contentions and objections raised by and on behalf of the petitioner in the Sessions Court as well as in this Court are kept open. Judge |muley|