[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.W.P.NO.996 OF 2008 TO CRI.W.P.NO.999 OF 2008 Mr.Anil Kumar Khaitan ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors...Respondents ... Mr.A.M.Saraogi advocate for Petitioner Mr.A.S.Shitole A.P.P. for the State Ms.Dipti Das i/b M/s.Duttmenon Dunmour Sett for Respondent No.3 ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner, the learned advocate for the respondent no.3 and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner is the director of the company. The petitioner is facing prosecution in cases i.e. C.C.Nos.2879 of 2004,3885 of 2004, 3386 of 2004 and 4972 of 2004 which are pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Pimpri, Pune. In the said cases, process under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act came to be issued. Being aggrieved [-2-] by the said order, the petitioner preferred revisions before the learned Sessions Judge. The said revisions came to be dismissed by order dated 31.1.2007. 3. In the said revisions, it was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the cheques were presented for payment much after winding up of the company and therefore, the petitioners cannot be made liable for prosecution especially for criminal liability as the company is under scheme for rehabilitation under BIFR. In support of his contention, reliance was placed on the decision in the case of M.L.Gupta Vs. M/s. Ceat Finance M.L.Gupta Vs. M/s. Ceat Finance M.L.Gupta Vs. M/s. Ceat Finance Services Ltd.; 2007 (1) DCR 383 Services Ltd.; 2007 (1) DCR 383 Services Ltd.; 2007 (1) DCR 383, wherein the cheques were presented after winding up of the company. It was held that the process issued against the Director for dishonour of cheque was not maintainable. However, the learned Sessions Judge did not consider this fact on the ground that this ground was not raised in the petition and only in the oral submissions, this ground was advanced. Moreover, in the said order, it is also mentioned that the petitioner had already approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No.2756 of 2006 [-3-] raising the same contentions for quashing of process issued against him. However, it is seen that the prayer in Writ Petition No.2756 of 2006 is not for quashing of process issued against him under Section 138 of N.I.Act, but it was for quashing of non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner in the said case. In such case, it is seen that the revision was dismissed on erroneous grounds and hence, the said order would have to be set aside. 4. Order dated 31.1.2007 is set aside. Revisions shall stand revived. The learned Sessions Judge shall dispose of the said revisions afresh and dispose of the same on merits after taking into consideration the decision in the case of M.L.Gupta (supra). Interim stay granted by this Court shall continue for a period of six weeks. Liberty is granted to the petitioner for applying before the Sessions Court for extension of interim relief. 5. All contentions of both sides are left open. 6. Writ petitions are disposed of. [-4-] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]