IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1255 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO.1255 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO.1255 OF 2007. Shri Nandkumar Ramchandra Jadhav. ..Petitioner. versus Shirala Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr. Umesh Mankapure, for the Petitioner. Mr. Pratap Patil, for Respondent No.1. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP, for Respondent-State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 1ST AUGUST,2008. : 1ST AUGUST,2008. : 1ST AUGUST,2008. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in a complaint filed by the first respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alongwith section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Process was issued on the said complaint under section 138 of the said Act of 1881. The petitioner filed a criminal revision application before the Sessions Court for challenging the order issuing process. The said revision application has been dismissed by the Sessions Court. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the averments made in the complaint. He submitted that even assuming - 2 - that the averments made in the complaint are true and correct, the cheque was issued for discharging the liability of the Lord Balaji Co-operative Bank Limited. He pointed out that the petitioner-accused is the ex-Chairman of the said Co-operative Bank, which has gone in liquidation. He submitted that on plain reading of the complaint, it is obvious that there was never a legally recoverable debt. He submitted that even taking the case of the first respondent as true, only because the petitioner happened to be an ex-Director, he is not personally liable to discharge the liabilities of the Bank. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. The case made out by the first respondent is that there are writings executed by the petitioner, which show that he had undertaken and accepted the liability to pay the amounts due and payable by the said Lord Balaji Co-operative Bank Limited to the first respondent and the others. Therefore, this is a case where the first respondent will have to be given an opportunity to adduce evidence to prove the existence of a legally recoverable debt. Admittedly, the cheque in dispute has been signed by the petitioner. Going by the averments made in the complaint, no case is made out for quashing the - 3 - complaint and the learned Magistrate was justified in issuing process under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The learned Sessions Judge was right in confirming the order issuing process. There is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed with no orders to costs. 4. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court as well as by the Sessions Judge are for limited purpose for examining the legality and validity of order issuing process. None of the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge or this Court shall be construed as findings on merits of the complaint. [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]