acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.497 OF 2009 Sandeep S. Khandelwal ….Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents. ----- Mr. S.V. Marwadi, i/b S.P. Narkar, for the Petitioner. Mr. Rajsh More, APP for the Respondent no.1-State. Mr. Shreeram Shirsat for the Respondent no.2. ---- CORAM: A.S. OKA, J. DATE: 9TH JULY, 2009. P.C.: 1. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the last date. The challenge in this writ petition under atciles 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Code of 1973) is to the order of issue of process passed by the learned Magistrate on the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent alleging the commission of offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881. A revision application preferred by the appliant for challenging the said order has : 2 : been rejected by the Sessions Court. One of the main challenge to the order of issue of process is to be the manner in which verificaton statement of the complainant has been recorded. My attention was drawn to the verification statement which is at page 23 of the petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the verification statement has been recorded in a pre-typed form and in a mechanical manner. He submitted that this court has already held that on the basis of the such verification statement, process cannot be issued. He stated that material averments as required under section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 do not find part of the verification statement. 2. The submission of the learned Counsel for the second respondent is that verification statement contained all material particulars and therefore a case was made out for issue of process under section 138 of the said Act of 1881. He, however, submitted that in the event this court is inclined to issue rule and keep the petition pending, the case may be remanded to the trial court as the default is on the part of the learned Magistrate who has not done his duty under section 200 of the said Code of 1973 by questioning authorised representative and the Constituted Attorney of the complainant. : 3 : 3. Perusal of the verification statement recorded in the complaint shows that it is in a format. The fact that the format was already kept ready is apparent from the fact that below the verification, there is a typed order of issue of process which is stuck out by hand. As held by this court, it is the duty of the learned Magistrate to record a proper statement of the complainant as required by section 200 of the said Code of 1973. The complainant cannot be blamed if the learned Magistrate has not done his duty. 4. Hence, I pass the following order: a) The impugned order dated 1st March 2008 of issue of process is quashed and set aside and the complaint is remanded to the learned Magistrate. b) The learned Magistrate will record a verification statement of the authorised representatie of he 2nd respondent afresh and will thereafter deal with the complaint in accordance with the law. c) All contentions on merits are kept open. : 4 : 5. The authorised representative of the complainant will appear before the learned Magistrate on 21st August 2009 for recording verification statement. JUDGE