1 (Crim wp. 14 of 2007)) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.14 OF 2007 Patodia Polytex Ltd and Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. Ceat Financial Services and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.B.L. Gandhi i/b. Mr. K.C. Pandey for Petitioners Mr. V.B. Pandey for Respondent No.1 Mr.D.R. More -APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED:13TH DECEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1. 2. The Petitioners is challenging the order of issuance of process passed by the learned Magistrate on a complaint filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is contended that two demand notices were issued by the complainant and, therefore, the complaint which is filed on the basis of the second notice, is not maintainable. 2 (Crim wp. 14 of 2007)) 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 submits that as p[er the instructions issued by the Complainant, only one demand notice was issued. He invited my attention to the averments made I the complaint and more particularly, paragraph 6 of the said complaint. 4. Since the fact of sending two notices is disputed by the complainant, the Petitioners will have to establish this fact during the trial. Hence, at this stage, it will not be possible to interfere with the order of issuance of process. All contentions raised by the Petitioners and the Respondents are kept open. The hearing of the trial is expedited. The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the criminal case within six months. The Petitioners are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 27th December, 2010, failing which, an appropriate order may be passed by the learned Magistrate. Parties to act on the authenticated copy. Writ petition is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)