IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NOS. 248, 249 and 250 OF 2008 M/s.Basure & Ors. ..... ...... ......Petitioners V/s Sailesh K. Lapasiya & Anr. (W.P.248/08) Paresh K. Lapasiya & Anr. (W.P.249/08) Chhotalal L. Lapasiya & Anr. (W.P.No.250/08)...... Respondents. Mr.Kishor Bhatia i/by Mr.Paras N. Vira, Adv. For the petitioners. Mr.S.V.Marwadi, Adv. For the respondent No.1. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 13/2/08 PC: Respondent No.1 original complainant instituted a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the present petitioners and original accused No.2-Zaverben L. Gosar. During the pendency of the complaint original accused No.2 is said to have paid her share of liability to the complainant from and out of the total outstandings due and hence an application was moved on behalf of the complainant and original accused No.2 for seeking orders with a view to drop accused No.2 from the proceedings. Taking recourse to section 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the trial Court passed an order and dropped the accused No.2. At a later stage the present petitioners viz. Accused Nos. 1, 3, and 4 moved an application under section 311 of Code of Criminal 1 Procedure for recalling the complainant with a view to further cross examining him touching the aspect of the exact amount of money paid by accused No.2. The trial Court rejected the application and revision preferred against the same by present petitioners also came to be dismissed by the Sessions Judge. Aggrieved thereby these petitioners are filed. A limited grievance is made by contending that the amount paid by original accused No.2 would have a bearing on the quantum of sentence. It is pointed out that accused No.1 is a partnership firm whereas other accused are prosecuted as partners of the firm. The settled position in law is that the liability of the partners is join and several. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus specifically states that the anxiety of the petitioners for further cross examining the complainant is just to bring on record the exact amount paid by the accused No.2 to the complainant so that appropriate submission at appropriate time could be made with the aid of said information. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent in all fairness submits that the matter is listed before the trial Court tomorrow and that the respondent-complainant will file an affidavit in each case stating therein the exact amount received by the complainant from accused No.2. In view of this categoric statement made by learned counsel for the respondent No.1 on instructions given by the complainant who is present in the Court no further orders are required to be passed. I accept the statement made by learned counsel for respondent No.1 in regard to proposed filing of affidavit before the trial Court. In view of the undertaking given by 2 respondent in regard to filing of affidavit before the trial Court learned counsel for the petitioners does not press these writ petitions and same stand disposed of. Parties to act on authenticated copy of the order. 13.2.08 3