1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.944 OF 2009 Vithal Ananda Patil Petitioner versus The Sangli Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. & another Respondents Varsha Palav for petitioner. Rajesh More, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24th June 2009 PC : 1. The first contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the demand notice which is a condition precedent for filing a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not served to the petitioner. The second contention is that the petitioner is neither the borrower nor a guarantor of the complainant bank and the third contention is that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 2. As far as first submission is concerned, the averments made in the complaint show that the notice was sent to the petitioner by registered post acknowledgement due. However, neither the notice is received back 2 nor the acknowledgement is received by the complainant. It is stated that a complaint has been filed by the complainant with the post master. Therefore, the question whether the notice was served or not will have to be decided only after the evidence is adduced. As far as second contention is concerned, the same is the defence of the petitioner which can be considered only at the time of trial. As far as third contention regarding jurisdiction is concerned, it will be for the petitioner to raise the same at the appropriate stage before the learned Magistrate and the same cannot be decided at this stage when process is issued. 3. Subject to what is observed above, the petition is rejected. However, all contentions of the petitioner on merits are expressly kept open. (A.S.OKA, J.)