((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.351 OF 2009 M/s.Eshaditi Chemicals Pvt.Ltd. and another Petitioners versus M/s.Global Linx Shipping and Logistics and another Respondents Ashutosh Kulkarni for petitioners. H.T.Dedhia, APP. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 06th April 2009 PC : 1. The petitioners have been arraigned as accused in the complaint filed by the 1st respondent for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The order issuing process was challenged by the petitioners by filing a revision application before the Sessions Court. The said revision application has been dismissed. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners based on a letter issued by the banker of the first respondent- complainant and on another letter issued by the bank on which the cheques in dispute were drawn is that the ((-2-)) cheques in dispute were never forwarded to the bank on which the same were drawn. His submission is that these two documents indicate that there is no question of dishonour of the cheques as the cheques were not received by the bank on which the same were drawn. 2. I have considered the submissions. The questions whether the cheques were really dishonoured or not or whether the same were received by the bank on which the same were drawn or not are required to be decided on evidence. There is prima facie evidence on record to show that the cheques were deposited by the first respondent-complainant with its bank for encashment and the same were returned unpaid. Unless evidence is adduced, no finding can be recorded on the factual aspect urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Hence, no case is made out for interference. 3. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent may not be interested in prosecuting the complaint as the authorised representative of the respondent is not attending the concerned Court. If that is so, the petitioners can ((-3-)) always pray before the learned Magistrate for invoking the power of the learned Magistrate under section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. If such an application is made by the petitioners, it is obvious that the learned Magistrate is bound to consider the same in accordance with law. 4. Subject to what is stated above, the writ petition is rejected. It is, however, made clear that all contentions of the petitioners are expressly kept open. (A.S.OKA, J.)