wp1073-11.sxw jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1073 OF 2011 Mrs. Madhu Mahesh Kanodia .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondents Mr. Hemang Amar Jariwala i/by M/s Aruna Law for the petitioner Mr. D.R.More, APP for the State Mr. M. S. Mohite, for respondent No.2 CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 3rd May, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The only ground for challenging issuance of process against the present petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is that the petitioner is residing at Surat i.e. beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Dadar, Mumbai and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had issued process against her, without following the mandates of Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. To state in brief, Respondent no.2 filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner-accused is proprietor of M/s Nupur Garments at Surat. She was appointed as distributor by the 1 wp1073-11.sxw complainant and on her orders, the complainant had delivered goods under several invoices, in respect of which she issued 23 cheques of different dates for payment of the amount due to the complainant. Out of the said 23 cheques, one was honured and 22 were dishonoured on presentation. Inspite of service of statutory notice, she failed to make payment and, therefore, the complaint was filed in respect of 22 cheques. 4. Verification statement of the complainant was recorded on 25.11.2009 and on that day, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate postponed the issuance of process in view of the mandatory provisions of section 202 Cr.P.C. because the accused is resident of Surat which is beyond territorial jurisdiction of the Court. On 27.1.2010, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order. In that order he has stated about the facts of the case and noted that he had perused the complaint, verification and all the documents which were placed on record in support of the complaint. On the basis of that material he came to the conclusion that it was a fit case to issue process and accordingly he directed to issue process. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused contends that earlier order dated 25.11.2009 was passed by the the learned Magistrate Mr. G O. Aggarwal, while the second order dated 27.1.2010 was passed by his successor Mr. S.H. Gwalani, and 2 wp1073-11.sxw according to him, as Mr. Gawlani has not recorded the statement of complainant before passing the impugned order, it must be held that there was no mandatory compliance of Section 202 Cr.P.C. I am not satisfied with this contention. Once the verification statement was recorded, it was not necessary that merely because of the transfer of the Magistrate who had recorded the verification statement, verification should be recorded again by his successor. Learned Magistrate had clearly complied with the mandatory provisions under section 202 Cr.P.C. to postpone issuance of process where -the accused is residing outside the territorial jurisdiction and having complied with the said provision, on the next date, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order wherein he clearly stated not only the facts but also that he had perused the complaint, verification and all the relevant documents placed on record. 6. It is not a case where the cheques were issued by a company and one of the several directors of the company, who had not issued cheques were made accused. In the present case, the accused is proprietor of M/s Nupur Garments. She is the signatory of all the cheques and the cheques were dishonoured on the ground that she had stopped payment and there is also material to show that statutory notice was served on her demanding the payment of the cheque amount but inspite of that she failed to make payment within stipulated period . Thus, clear 3 wp1073-11.sxw case under section 138 was made out and on that basis the learned Magistrate issued the process. I find no substance in the present petition. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed. 7. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. ( J.H. BHATIA, J. ) 4