1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.APPA 244 OF 2010. SAYED IMRAO S/O FAIJUDDIN VS TAJ GULAM @ GUDDU S/O TAJ FAUL SHAIKH _________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri R. S. Kurekar, Advocate for the applicant. Coram : A.H. JOSHI, J. Date : 16h JUNE, 2010. 1. Heard learned Advocate Shri R. S. Kurekar for the applicant. 2. Perused the judgment. 3. According to the learned Advocate Mr. Kurekar, the complaint is dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur, on the ground that while a complaint is filed by power of attorney holder of the holder of cheque, the attorney admits that he did not take prior permission either before depositing the cheque for collection or even for filing criminal complaint. 4. Perusal of judgment reveals that the observations and discussions relied upon by the Magistrate are incidental. The real cause of dismissing the complaint is that the complainant 2 admits in cross examination that he does not know what is stated in the affidavit or examination-in-chief. 5. The submissions advanced before the Court are thus, misconceived. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed. Judge |mule|