1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1529/2009 (Dr.Hiroo Vs. Nihalchand) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. D.K.Kulkarni, Adv., for applicant. Mr. P.F.Patni, Adv., for respondent. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 3/8/2009 P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and Counsel opposing the application. 2. In a matter under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, issuance of process by the learned 10th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, is sought to be set aside to the extent of applicant herein. It was contended, the applicant is no more a partner of the firm since 1999 while subject transaction is of 2004 and he had no role to play in the issuance of the cheque. The firm was unregistered. 3. The complaint lodged before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, in paragraph no.2 recites as under: 2 " That, the accused No.1 is a partnership firm and the accused nos. 2 to 5 are the partners of the said firm. All the partners are the active partners of the said firm and they are looking after the day to day affairs of the said firm i.e. accused No.1. " This indicates, in unequivocal manner, as to what was running in the mind of the complainant and what impression he was given at the relevant time when there was a transaction of sale of goods, sale of food grains, maze crops to the partnership firm of which present applicant was partner. His retirement, way back on 1.12.1999, apparently, is not notified to public at large. It is his contention that the rest of the partners carried the business voluntarily, exonerating all claims and contentions to the accused/applicants. These aspects, cannot be taken into consideration at the stage of present proceedings. These are the defences available, to be coined and accelerated at the time of trial. At this stage, it cannot be said, without there being any material the process was issued. Consequently, the application lacks merit. It is rejected. The observations are prima facie in nature. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/1529-09crapl