1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 913 OF 2009 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 914 OF 2009 Vallabhji Khetsi Shah & ors........Petitioners versus State of Maharashtra & anr. ........Respondents. Mr. S.V. Marwadi h/f S.P. Narkar adv. for the Petitioner. Mrs. Mallika Ingle for the Respondent no.2. Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa APP for State.. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 18th February, 2010. P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla in C.C. No. 3012043/SS/2008. The main ground of challenge is that the verification of the complaint which has been done by the learned Magistrate has been done in a mechanical manner and therefore the issuance of process is not sustainable in law. 3. The learned Single Judge of this court in the case of Amarnath Baijnath Gupta & anr. Vs. M/s. Mohini Organics Pvt.& 2 anr reported in 2009 ALL MR (cri) 184 has held that the statement contemplated by section 200 of Cr.P.C. is not an empty formality and cannot be done mechanically by simply filling details such as the date of cheque, name of the bank, date of intimation of dishonour of the cheque etc. in a format which is already kept ready. 4. Perusal of the verification in the present case would reveal that the verification has been done in a mechanical manner, only by filling in blanks in the prepared format. As such issuance of process on the basis of such mechanical manner is not sustainable in law. 5. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). The matter is remitted back to the learned Magistrate for proceeding further in accordance with the law. (B.R. Gavai, J.)