IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2543 OF 2006. APPLICATION NO.2543 OF 2006. APPLICATION NO.2543 OF 2006. Shri Jagannivas Shrinivas Bhat & Ors. ..Applicants. versus Smt. Shobhana S. Dholakia & Anr. ..Respondents. AND CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2544 OF 2006. APPLICATION NO.2544 OF 2006. APPLICATION NO.2544 OF 2006. Shri Jagannivas Shrinivas Bhat & Ors. ..Applicants. versus Shri Satish P. Dholakia & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mrs.B.P.Jakhade, for the Applicants. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State, in Crim.Appln.No.2543/2006. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State, in Crim.Appln.No.2544/2006. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 29TH AUGUST,2008. : 29TH AUGUST,2008. : 29TH AUGUST,2008. P.C. 1. Heard the Advocate appearing for the Applicants. The Applicants have been arraigned as the accused in a complaint filed by the first Respondent alleging commission of offences under section 138 read with section 141 of the negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Process was issued on the said complaint. Order issuing process was challenged by the Applicants by filing Revision Application before the Sessions Court which has been dismissed by - 2 - the order dated 24th November 2005. The substantive challenge in these Applications is to the said order dated 24th November 2005 passed by the Sessions Court. The first contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants is that the cheques on the basis of which complaint has been filed were issued by way of colateral security and the complainants have deposited the said cheques by subsequently putting dates thereon notwithstanding the knowledge that the Income Tax Authorities had freezed the accounts of the Applicants on which the said cheques were drawn. The second contention is that offence under section 138 of the Act of 1881 is not attracted in as much as the cheques were dishonoured as the account in question was freezed by the Income Tax Authorities. 2. I have carefully considered the submissions. Whether the cheques issued were blank cheques or whether the cheques were issued by way of colateral are the issues which are required to be decided on evidence and at this stage, on the basis of the said contentions, the complaint cannot be quashed. 3. In so far as the second submission is concerned, the cheques subject matter of the - 3 - complaint in Criminal Application No.2543/2006 were issued in November and December 1999 and were dishonoured under a memorandum of dishonour dated 7th December 1999 which records that the account was closed. The cheques subject matter of the other complaint were issued in July 1999 which were dishonoured under the memorandum of dishonour dated 5th October 1999 recording therein that the account was closed. The order of freezing passed by the Income Tax Authorities on 9th November 1998. There is nothing on record to show that the said order continued to be in force till the date on which the cheques were dishonoured. As stated above, the cheques have been dishonoured on the ground that the accounts were closed. Therefore, even this aspect will have to be considered on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties and no case is made out for interference at this stage. 4. Accordingly, the Criminal Applications are rejected. However, it is made clear that all contentions raised by the Applicants are kept open which can be agitated at the time of trial. [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]