1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1837 of 2011 Popatlal C. Gandhi ...Petitioner Versus Ventura Securities Ltd. & Another ...Respondents Mr.Niranjan Mundargi a/w. Vinayak Patil for Petitioners. Mrs.V.R.Bhonsale APP for State Respondent No.2 CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 12th JULY, 2011. P.C. 1. The learned Metropolitan 16th Court, Ballard Estate, Mumbai had issued process against the petitioner in C.C.No.1609867/SS/2008 being complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. After the issuance of process, the present applicant who was accused before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, filed application at Exhibit 7 and contended that the said Court had no 2 jurisdiction to try the said case. That application was rejected by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by Order dated 25th June, 2010. 2. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 25th June, 2010, the present applicant filed Revision Application No.681 of 2010 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by Order dated 30th March, 2011 rejected the said revision application. Hence the applicant has approached this Honourable Court so as to challenge both the orders. 3. It is noticed that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had issued process after considering the record before him. Once that was done, it was open for the present applicant to challenge the said order by exercising revisional jurisdiction contending that the order of issuance of process is bad. At that time it was open for him to raise contention about jurisdiction also. In my view, the application filed by the present applicant below Exhibit 7 was not maintainable. It appears that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate entertained the said application and passed the order. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also did his job and came to the conclusion that the revision 3 petition should be dismissed. If the original application at exhibit 7 was not maintainable, orders passed thereon will have to be treated as non est. 4. The court is informed that the case is at the stage of recording of evidence and the complainant is under cross examination. Now, that the applicant has not challenged the issuance of process the only course left open for the present applicant is to raise the question before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in appropriate manner i.e. to say, ask appropriate questions to the witnesses of complainant in the cross examination and also if necessary step into the witness box and also examine additional witnesses to give evidence so that he could contend that the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate has no jurisdiction. 5. In these circumstances, I am inclined to dismiss this petition with clarification that whatever has been expressed by the learned Metropolitan Magisttate in his Order dated 25th June, 2010 as well as what ever is expressed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his Order dated 30th March, 2011 shall not be considered by the 4 learned Metropolitan Magistrate who would be deciding the case on merits. The applicant is free to raise all the contentons about the jurisdiction in the course of trial. 6. With the aforesaid clarification, petition stands dismissed. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)