1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO.1949 OF 2009 Jagdish Tribhuvandas Thakkar .. Applicant Vs State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. A.P.Mundargi, Senior Counsel, i/b H.R.Sharma , Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 09/06/2009 PC: 1. Heard Mr Mundargi, learned senior counsel for the applicant and Mrs Shinde, learned APP. for the respondent. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No. I-26 of 2009 of Chembur police station. The said crime has been registered against the applicant for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 420 r/w 34 of IPC. 3. According to the applicant, he had supplied plastic raw material to the complainant worth Rs.47,68,500/- under Invoice T 2 nos.969, 970 and 971, all dated 8.8.2008. As per the applicant, the raw material was received by the complainant and it was unloaded in the godown at Bhiwandi. However, according to the complainant, he never placed purchase order for supply of the goods with the applicant’s firm, nor did he receive the raw material as claimed by the applicant either in the godown at Bhiwandi or at any other place. The investigation officer, in the affidavit filed by him, has, however, stated that during investigation it revealed that the goods were sent and they were unloaded in the godown at Bhiwandi on the instructions of one Yash Dedhia. It further reveals that the goods were thereafter sent to Delhi in the presence of one Tiwari, an employee of Yash Didhia. The warehouse charges of the goods were paid by Yash Dedhia by cheque. According to the complainant, he had issued two blank cheques dated 6.10.2008 and 7.10.2008 and handed them over to Yash Dadhia. There was some understanding between the two, to which the present applicant was not a party. Those cheques, according to the complainant, were handed over by Yash Dedhia to the present applicant as payment towards the goods supplied by the applicant and received in the godown at Bhiwandi for the complainant. Those cheques were dishonoured and in view thereof the applicant filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the complainant 3 at Ahmadabad on 20.1.2009. The present complaint was, however, lodged by the complainant on 16.1.2009 and it further appears that the applicant and the complainant both were not aware about the complaints filed by them against each other. From perusal of the papers placed before the court and more particularly the affidavit filed by the investigating officer, Yash Dedhia seems to have played vital role in committing the alleged offence. Mr Mundargi, learned senior counsel for the applicant, submits that knowledge cannot be attributed to the applicant of sending the goods from the godown at Bhiwandi to Delhi. In any case, the applicant cannot be held responsible for sending the goods by Yash Dedhia to Delhi. He further submits that the applicant in fact supplied the goods to the complainant and the cheques were handed over to him as a price for the goods. The cheques were dishonoured, which forced the applicant to file the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary in view of the admitted fact that the goods were delivered by the applicant at Bhiwandi and they were sent from the godown at Bhiwandi to Delhi by Yash Dedhia and that the applicant is not in possession of the goods. Hence, the following order. 4 In the event of arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties to make up the said amount, subject to the conditions stipulated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Further, the applicant is directed to report to the concerned police station on everyday between 5 pm and 7 pm till 20.6.2009 and thereafter on every alternate Saturday between 6 pm and 7 pm for a period of 90 days from today or till filing of the chargesheet, whichever is earlier. While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case without being influenced by the observations made in this order. The application is disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) 5