1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3474 OF 2011 Manubhai J. Patel Petitioner versus Dr.Vasant Chedda and others Respondents Mr.S.K.Srivastav i/by S.K.Srivastav & Co. for petitioner. Mr.Jatin P. Shah for respondent no.1. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP for State. CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. DATE : 24th November 2011 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The respondent no.1 is the complainant and the petitioner is the accused in Complaint No. 813/SS/2008. The complaint is filed under section 138 r/w section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (`the said act' for short). Initially process was issued by the Magistrate. The process was challenged by present petitioner by filing revision and the matter was remanded back to the Magistrate. The Magistrate was directed to give an opportunity to the complainant and the accused and after application of mind pass appropriate order. The Magistrate thereafter recorded fresh verification statement of the constituted attorney of the complainant and passed order dated 20th October 2010 whereby the process was issued against the petitioner herein. This order is confirmed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application No.1027 of 2009 vide order dated 3rd October 2011 and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. Mr.Shrivastav submits that the complaint is filed by the respondent no.1 through his Power of Attorney holder Mr.Shirish Adesara. He 2 submits that if the verification statement of the constituted attorney of the respondent no.1-complainant is perused, the same does not disclose that he had personal knowledge of the transaction between the complainant and the accused. I have gone through the verification statement of the constituted attorney which is annexed as Exhibit-E at pages 103 and 104. Reading of the verification statement makes it crystal clear that the constituted attorney of the complainant has affirmed the contents of documents annexed to the complaint as correct to his best knowledge. The complaint is also affirmed by the constituted attorney. In paragraph 1 of the complaint the constituted attorney of the complainant has stated that he is aware of the facts of the case and he is authorized to file the complaint. Statutory notice under section 138 of the Act is annexed to the complaint and the same is signed by the constituted attorney of the complainant. 3. In the above facts and circumstances, I do not fine any merit in the contention of Mr.Srivastava that the constituted attorney of the complainant had no personal knowledge of the transaction between the complainant and the accused. The Sessions Court also found that the constituted attorney was very much involved in the transaction between the complainant and the accused. 4. In the facts mentioned above, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order in my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.V.MORE, J.)