sat 1 wp 1871-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1871 OF 2011 Amol Automation through Amol Dilip Kulkarni & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. V. Powers & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Vivek V. Salunke for the Petitioners. Mrs.U.V. Kejriwal, APP for the State. CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. NOVEMBER 25, 2011 P.C. :- 1 Heard. Perused the impugned order of the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik. 2 The petitioners are the original accused in Criminal Case No.1292/2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nashik Road. They are facing trial for the offence punishable u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3 The order directing the issuance of process against both the petitioners was challenged before the Sessions Court mainly on two grounds, (1) There was no sat 2 wp 1871-2011 proof of service of statutory notice and (2) There is no averment that the petitioners were in-charge of the business of the firm. 4 I have gone through the complaint as well as the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In the complaint, it is specifically stated that the respondent-original complainant was dealing with both the petitioners and as such, prima facie it was not necessary for him to state more than this. As regards second point, it may be stated here that the notice was sent by registered post AD and under UPC. The envelope sent by the registered post with acknowledgment due was returned with endorsement “Premises left”. As such, it appears, prima facie, that the respondent-original complainant had taken all necessary steps to serve the notice at the address of the petitioners. Whether it amounted to good service or not will be decided during the course of trial. I do not find any substance in the petition. 5 The petition stands dismissed. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J)