( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.384 OF 2006 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.384 OF 2006 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.384 OF 2006 Ananda Tukaram Shejul .. Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Vishwanath S.Talkute for the applicant. Ms.Alpa Jhaveri, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 3rd June, 2008. DATED : 3rd June, 2008. DATED : 3rd June, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Vishwanath Talkute for the applicant and Ms.Alpa Jhaveri, learned A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra. 2. The applicant was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I.Act by judgement and order dated 2.12.2004 passed by the J.M.F.C., Mangalwedha, District Solapur in S.T.C.No.561 of 2003. The applicant was aggrieved by the said order of conviction and filed Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2004. The learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur by order dated 25.8.2006 dismissed the Appeal. Hence this revision. 3. I have heard learned Advocate Mr.Talkute. He informed this Court that the applicant could not avail bail facility. He has undergone the sentence passed against him by the learned Trial Judge. In my view, this of course has no bearing on the merits of the ( 2 ) revision. 4. Learned Advocate Mr.Talkute contended that the complainant respondent No.2 had not produced office copy of the statutory demand notice and as such before the learned Trial Judge, proper documentary evidence in suport of the contention that the demand was made after the dishonour of the cheque was not proved. He further informed the Court that the packet addressed in the name of the applicant duly returned unserved was produced before the Court. No efforts were made by the applicant as well as respondent No.2 to open the packet. In my view, the very fact that the packet drawn in the name of the applicant came back to the respondent No.2 duly undelivered and was produced before the Court was sufficient to hold that a statutory notice was given because the complainant in the normal course will not like to produce same packet addressed to him and tried to pass it off as a packet containing demand notice. It is also not a case of the applicant that there were some other reasons to exchange correspondence between the complainant and and respondent No.2. Hence this point cannot survive. 5. The next contention was as regards issuance of blank cheque by the applicant in favour of respondent No.2. The applicant could not offer adequate ( 3 ) explanation before this Court as to why the blank cheque was issued in favour of the respondent No.2. A vague explanation was sought to be tendered by the applicant that there were some transactions between the applicant and the respondent No.2. However, the nature of the transactions was not disclosed. 6. Having considered the record and having seen that the defence put up by the applicant is not properly made out, particularly, when the issuance of cheque was admitted, no interference is required in the impugned judgement and order. The revision is, therefore, dismissed. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)