1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2436 OF 2008 Mrs.Vijaya Mohan @ Vijaya Kumar Petitioner versus Salim Sahajan Shaikh and another Respondents Satyajeet M. Mirajkar for petitioner. Rajendra Sarankar for respondent no.2. Rajesh More, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18th June 2009 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in a complaint filed by the first respondent alleging offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner preferred revision application before the Sessions Court for challenging the order of issue of process. The revision application has been rejected and therefore this petition is filed by the petitioner. 2. The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the submissions on application for stay made in the revision application as well as submissions on main revision application were heard by the 2 learned Sessions Judge. But the learned Judge has not passed any order on application for stay and has decided the main revision application. His second submission is that the process could not have been issued as the petitioner had already complained earlier that the concerned cheque book has been misplaced. He submitted that the said fact was brought to the notice of the concerned banker by the petitioner. 3. I have considered the submissions. It is not in dispute that the submissions of the counsel for the parties were heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on merits of the revision application. As the main revision application itself was disposed of, there was no necessity of passing an order on application for stay filed in the revision application seeking stay till disposal of the revision application. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cheque book was lost and the cheques subject matter of the complaint filed by the first respondent were misused is the defence of the petitioner and the said defence will have to be established by adducing evidence. 5. At this stage the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to paragraph 4 of the judgement in revision application which records that the petitioner was not heard. This grievance has not been made earlier. In fact, no such ground is taken in paragraph no.3 of the petition. 3 6. In any event, what is urged before this Court is the defence of the petitioner which will have to be established on evidence. Hence, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is dismissed. However, all the contentions of the petitioner on merits are expressly kept open. (A.S.OKA, J.)