* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.138 OF 2008 Rajendra Prasad Pandey ....Applicant V/S. 1. Shri.Parvat Kumar Mahapatra 2. State of Maharashtra ....Respondents ======= Mr.Rajender Sintgh i/by.Mr.A.K.Mourya, adv.for applicants. Mr.Tirath Singh,adv.for respondent no.1. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP for State of Maharashtra-respondent no.2. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 4TH AUGUST, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard counsels for both sides. 2. The Revision Applicant is convicted alongwith one Shivnath Yadav for the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and pay fine of Rs. 32,000/- and Rs.31,000/- respectively. Respondent no.1 is the original complainant. After his conviction, accused Shivnath Yadav compromised the proceedings with respondent no.1 by making payment to him. The applicant, however, challenged the order of his conviction by preferring an appeal to the Sessions Court. That appeal was * 2 * dismissed by the order dated 27th March, 2008. He has now approached this court invoking its revisional jurisdiction. 3. It is the case of respondent no.1, that the applicant and respondent no.1 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for incorporation of a private limited company. It was agreed in the MOU that until incorporation, the parties will carry out business under the name and style of M/s.Akash Enterprises with the applicant and Shivnath as working partners. Respondent no.1 had invested Rs. 12,500/- as the initial capital and later additional capital of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In order to return the amount of additional capital, applicant and Shivnath handed over four cheques to respondent no.1. On presentation of the cheques for payment, the same were dishonoured, leading to the present proceedings. 4. The defence of the applicant and Shivnath before the trial court was that the proceedings filed were beyond the period of limitation. They contended that the MOU was not executed by them. They further contended that respondent no.1 had failed to establish the offence against them as he failed to produce the copy of the notice and acknowledgement of postal receipt during the course of evidence. 5. After completion of the oral arguments, the applicant had got the memorandum of arguments under Section 314 CrPC filed before the trial court. At para-7 of this Memorandum of arguments, the applicant admits receipt of notice. Therefore, the argument on behalf of the applicant as regards non-production of the statutory notice and the acknowledgement thereof is baseless. It was also claimed by both the * 3 * accused that the amount of additional investment was paid by them to respondent no.1 who issued two receipts (Exhibit-D/1 and Exhibit-D/2). The trial court and the appeal court found that the document of receipts are doubtful documents. The receipt at Exhibit-D/1 had a revenue stamp thereon and also the signature of respondent no.1. However, there was a large gap between the signature and the writing on the receipt. The writing was also seen to be in different ink. The other receipt was a typed receipt with blank column filled in. It bears the signature of the complainant but does not bear the cheque number and the date on which the amount was said to be paid. Therefore the evidence of the payment having been made and the receipt issued therefor does not hold any water. This would also mean that there is no substance in the contention of the applicant that the MOU was not signed by him and Shivnath. 6. As regards the third contention of limitation, both the courts have held that considering the date of issuance of notice, the application was filed within time. In the circumstances, the Revision Application is dismissed. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]