1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.598 OF 2008 Bhagubhai Motibhai Patel ...Applicant Vs. Preeti Yogesh Mehta & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.D. Ashok Kumar for Applicant Mr. Subhash Jha, Sr. Advocate for the Respondent No.1 Mrs. A.A. Mane, A.P.P for the State CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 5TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1.The Applicant has been convicted initially by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 13 th Court, Dadar Mumbai and later by the 2 nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewri, Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No.92/2007 filed by the Applicant in this case. His convictions have come to be made under the Bills of Exchange accepted by the Limited Company in which the Applicant is the Chairman and Managing Director in favour of Respondent No.1 herein. The liability of the acceptor being primary, the Limited Company of the Applicant came to be prosecuted along with the Applicant. The Applicant as well as the Limited Company have been represented by the same Advocate in the trial Court. The record shows the drawing and accepting of the Bills of Exchange pursuant to which the liability came to be accepted 2 under the Negotiable Instrument Act. Upon these Bills of Exchange certain cheques came to be issued. They came to be presented to the Bankers and came to be dishonoured for non-payment on as many as 3 occasions. The bills came to be extended from time to time. The Limited Company which was accused No.1 admittedly drew as many as 9 cheques upon dishonour of which the ultimate prosecution has commenced. 2.The drawing and accepting of the Bills of Exchange as well as getting them extended from time to time even after the dishonour of the earlier cheques itself shows admission of the liability of the amounts mentioned therein. The cheques for which the prosecution ensued shows presumption of the execution of the cheques and the liability for the consideration mentioned therein. It is for the Limited Company of the Applicant as well as the Applicant to rebut that presumption. 3.The learned Magistrate as well as the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge have rightly considered this aspect. There is absolutely no merit in the Revision Application. Hence, the Revision Application is rejected. The findings of both the Courts below recording conviction is upheld. 4.The compensation which is directed to be paid is not paid except for the amount deposited for obtaining 3 interim bail in this Court. The amount which is deposited is allowed to be withdrawn by the Respondent No.1 herein. 5.The Applicant has not remained present. His bail has not been extended. He has not surrendered before the Court. His Advocate has nevertheless been heard on merits of his claim. The Applicant shall be taken in custody from his present residence in New Delhi shown in the title of this Revision Application as well as in Criminal Appeal No.92/2007. 6.The Criminal Revision Application is disposed off accordingly. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)