WP.715-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 715 OF 2010 M/s. Mayuka Labs Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents *** Mr. U. L. Shah, for the Petitioners. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the Respondent-State. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : DECEMBER 14, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners are challenging the order of issuance of process passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, on the complaint filed under S. 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the verification is in a fixed format. The verification is not in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of - Amarnath Baijnath Gupta & Anr. v. Mohini WP.715-10 - 2 - Organics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [2009 ALL MR (cri) 184]. Secondly, it is submitted that the details submitted in the verification are also incorrect. The principal amount and the dates are incorrect. It is submitted that accused are residing outside the jurisdiction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and therefore, the mandatory provisions of S. 202 Cr. P. C. are not complied with. Thirdly, it is submitted that the Kurla Court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. 2. It is not possible to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners since in a recent judgment, the Full Bench of this Court in the case of – Rajesh Bhalchandra Chalke, Petitioner vs. State of maharashtra & Anr.,Respondents (Cri. Writ Petition No. 2525/2010 WITH Cri. Application No. 3478/2010], dated 7th December, 2010 , has over-ruled the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of - Amarnath Baijnath Gupta (supra), and held that verification can be in a fixed format. In view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the said case, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. 3. So far as the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners in regard to the provisions of Sec. 202 Cr. P. C. are concerned, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of - Bansilal WP.715-10 - 3 - Kabra Vs. Global Trade Finance Ltd. & Anr., dated 9th July, 2010 in Cri. Appln. No. 1344 of 2010, the provisions of S. 202 Cr. P. C. are directory and not mandatory, and therefore, the said submission cannot be accepted. 4. So far as jurisdiction of the Kurla Court is concerned, the complainant has deposited the cheque in their bank at Chembur i.e. within jurisdiction of Kurla Court, and therefore, this submission also cannot be accepted. Therefore, there is no merit in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. 5. However, the petitioner No.2 is exempted from appearing in the trial Court. His statement under S. 313 Cr. P. may be recorded through the advocate, provided, he gives an undertaking to the trial Court that he will not dispute the correctness of the answers recorded in the statement under S. 313 Cr. P. C. The learned trial Court shall follow the procedure laid down under S. 313(5) Cr. P.C. and shall also follow the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of – Keya Mukherjee, Appellant vs. Megma Leasing Ltd. & Anr., Respondents [(2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 447]. The learned trial Court may cancel the exemption granted to petitioner No.2 if his advocate does not remain WP.715-10 - 4 - present on two dates. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. 6. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioners requests stay of this order for a period of 4 weeks. His request is declined. [ V. M. KANADE J.]