FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2684 OF 2008 Rajendrasingh Sopanrao Suryawanshi Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Coram, appearances, Court s orders : ’ or directions and Registrar s’ : Court s or Judge s orders ’ ’ orders : _____________________________________________________________________________________ Mr.Amit Sale for petitioner Mr.Anand Kulkarni for respondent No.2 Ms.S.V.Gajare APP CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 9th February 2010. PC :- 1. Heard Mr.Sale for petitioner. The petitioner accused questions the order issuing process on a complaint filed by the respondent No.1 alleging commission of offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. 2. The only submission canvassed before me is that the order is passed on perusal of the complaint, affidavit and documents placed on record. This is no verification of the complaint inasmuch as a verification statement has to be recorded and a reference thereto made before the order issuing process is passed. Further, in this case on the reading of the complaint itself and taking all allegations as true and correct, no offence is disclosed inasmuch as cheque was not presented for payment during the validity period. 3. Reliance is placed upon a decision of this Court in Criminal Application No.2995 of 2001 (Dr.Arun Tikekar and Ors. Vs. Sanatan Sanstha & Ors) decided on 25th June 2009. Reliance is also placed upon a decision of this Court in Amarnath Baijanath Gupta and Anr. Vs. M/s.Mohini Organics Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. Reported in (2009) All M.R.( Criminal) 184. 4. It is not possible to accept this contention. In the instant case, the learned Judge has observed that he has perused the complaint, affidavit of the complainant, documents placed on record and after hearing the complainant, he has satisfied himself that a prima facie case is made out. In these circumstances, it cannot be presumed that the court below has violated the provisions of Cr.P.C., and more particularly section 200 thereof. In Amarnath s case (supra) This Court has ’ frowned upon the system of trial court filling in details and blanks in a prepared statement, while recording verification statement in a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In the instant case, the learned Judge has referred to the complaint and documents produced which show that prima facie the cheque was issued by the accused petitioner before me, it was presented and returned unpaid. The reasons are also set out in the memo of the bank. In these circumstances and when there is a presumption with regard to the correctness of the contents of the memo of bank dishonouring the cheque and when it is open to the petitioner to demonstrate and prove that the cheque was not presented within the validity period, there is no reason to interfere at this stage. There is no breach of the guidelines issued by this Court in Amarnath s’ case. 5. The petition is dismissed but it is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions. Learned Judge should decide the case uninfluenced by any prima facie observations. Ad-interim order, if any, to stand vacated forthwith. 6. At this stage Mr.Sale prays that ad-interim order granted be continued for a period of six weeks to enable him to challenge this order in higher court. Having found that the complaint has been filed in the year 2007, the process has been issued on 27th January 2007 and the petitioner has approached this Court on 28th November / 3rd December 2008, continuation of the ad-interim order would only prejudice the complainant. Prayer in that behalf is refused. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.)