((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1826 OF 2008 Prasannaraj S. Pandyaji Petitioner versus Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Bank Ltd. and another Respondents U.R.Mankapure for petitioner. Miss S.V.Gajre, APP for the State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22nd April 2009 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is arraigned as an accused in a complaint filed by the first respondent alleging commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. An application made by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate by pointing out that according to the case of the first respondent a charge was created in favour of the first respondent for repayment of loan on fixed deposits in the sum of Rs.6.00 lakhs in the name of the petitioner and his family members. By the said application the petitioner prayed that original fixed deposit receipts and ((-2-)) relevant documents relating to interest accrued on the fixed deposits be ordered to be produced by the first respondent. The said application has been rejected by the learned Trial Judge. The order of rejection has been confirmed in the revision application. 2. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner I find no merit in the application. In the reply filed by the first respondent to the said application it is pointed out that though initially cash credit facility to the extent of Rs.9.75 lakhs was sanctioned, the limit thereof was reduced subsequently to Rs.3.75 lakhs as the petitioner and his family members expressed inability to create charge on the fixed deposits. The learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the revision application has observed that it will be always open for the petitioner to lead evidence. 3. No case for interference is made out. The petition is rejected. It is, however, clarified that the petitioner can always lead evidence for establishing his defence. ((-3-)) (A.S.OKA, J.)